“And He [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.”
Luke 4:16
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”
John 17:11
“That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.”
1 Cor. 12:25
.
.
“We do not leave communion of true Churches for corruptions and sins, but only abstain from the practice of evil in our own persons, and witness against it in others, still holding communion with the Churches of Christ.”
Edward Leigh
Body of Divinity, p. 377
.
.
Subsections
Urgency for Church Unity
Principles of Union & Separation about Impurities of Worship
Occasional & Partial Conformity
Occasional Hearing
Contagiousness of Sin
Separation from Rome: Necessary
Cameronianism
Richard Hamilton
Against Separation from Impure Civil Governments
Separatists’ Works
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 18+
Books 10+
Quotes 20+
Latin 4+
Biblio 3
Theological
Different Kinds of Separation
Justifications for Separation
Not Join when One can is Schism
Rutherford’s Conclusions
Saying ‘Amen’
Practical
May Leave for a More Profitable Church
Impure may be better than a Pure Church
When it’s Right to Abstain from Public Worship
Double Separation?
How to Cure Separatism
Historical 1
Works of & on Separatists
Works of Separatists
About Separatists
.
Articles
1500’s
Calvin, John – ‘On [2] Excommunication, [3-4]Separation, the Lord’s Supper & [5] Pastors’ in A Short Instruction for to Arm All Good Christian People against the Pestiferous Errors of the Common Sect of Anabaptists (London: Daye, 1549), no page numbers
Bullinger, Henry – 2nd Sermon, ‘That there is One catholic Church; that without the Church there is no light or salvation; against schismatics; wherefore we depart from the upstart Church of Rome; that the Church of God is the house, vineyard and Kingdom of God; and the body, sheepfold and spouse of Christ; a mother and a virgin’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 4, 5th Decade, pp. 49-92
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ch. 6, ‘Of Schism, & whether the professors of the Gospel be schismatics because they have alienated themselves from the Papists’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, pp. 68-96
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Schism’ 542.b
What schism is 542.b
What Difference is between Heresy & Schism 543.a
How many kinds of schism there be 543.a
Whether we be rightly called schismatics by the Papists 543.b
Whereof schisms do come 544.a
How grievous the sin of schism is 545.a
Cartwright, Thomas
‘A Reproof of Certain Schismatical Persons’ in eds. Peel & Carlson, Cartwrightiana (London: Halley Stewart, 1951), pp. 197-261 This work is listed as doubtful authorship.
‘A Letter of T. C. to Robert Harrison Concerning Separation’ 15 pp. (1584) in The Judgment of Mr. Cartwright & Mr. Baxter Concerning Separation & the Ceremonies (1673) Note that EEBO lists the author as Cartwright (1634-1689), which is untrue. This same work is in Cartwrightiana, pp. 48-58.
On the Brownist, Robert Harrison (d. 1585?), see Wiki.
‘Letter to Mrs. Stubbes his sister-in-law to persuade her from Brownism’ in eds. Peel & Carlson, Cartwrightiana (London: Halley Stewart, 1951), pp. 63-75
Anne Stubbes was “a notable Barrowist”.
Alison, Richard – A Plain Confutation of a Treatise of Brownism… (London: Scarlet,1590) 140 pp. ToC
Hildersham, Arthur – A Treatise of the Ministry of the Church of England, wherein is handled this Question: Whether it be to be separated from, or joined unto. Which is discussed in Two Letters, the one written for it, the other against it (Low Countries, 1595) 141 pp.
The main body of this work (137 pp.) is a letter of Hildersham, arguing for lay-communion with the Church of England to a lady who had separated therefrom, split into ten sections. Each section is responded to for the opposite conclusion by Francis Johnson (d. 1618), a separatist, Brownist minister, who published the volume.
.
1600’s
Junius, Francis – A Christian Letter, Containing a Grave & Godly Admonition to such as Make Separation from the Church Assemblies in England & Elsewhere (d. 1602; London, 1602) 11 pp.
James, Edward – A Retreat Sounded to Certain Brethren lately Seduced by the Schismatical Brownists to Forsake the Church (London: Stafford, 1607) 14 pp.
Hall, Joseph – Epistles, the Second Volume (London: 1608)
3rd Decade
Epistle 1. To Mr. Smith & Mr. Rob, Ring-leaders of the late Separation at Amserdam: their injury done to the Church, the injustice of their cause, and fearfulness of their offence, censuring and advising them, pp.1-9
Epistle 5. To Mr. W.L., expostulating the cause of his unsettledness in religion: where is showed that our dissensions are no sufficient ground of his suspension and comparing the estate of our Church herein with the Romish, pp. 55-65
6th Decade
Epistle 5. Written long since to Mr. I.W., dissuading from Seperation & Shortly Oppugning the Grounds of that Error, pp. 41-63
Brightman, Thomas – pp. 131-32 on Rev. 3 in A Revelation of the Apocalypse… (Amsterdam, 1611)
Ames, William
‘Letter to John Robinson’ (1611) in The Works of John Robinson (London: Snow, 1851), 3.85-86
Background to this letter is given in the few pages preceding it. Robinson’s response to Ames follows in the volume. To that response Ames wrote the Second Manuduction below, to which Robinson did not respond.
“…only that one point which contains indeed the very bitterness of Separation, I would desire you again to consider of, as you do me: viz. ‘Whether there be not a visible communion even out of a visible church.'” – p. 85
[For Ames, a congregationalist, visible Christians were not part of the visible Church till they combined together into a local body, and then they were a visible church.]
“Neither can other sufficient reason be given why we should communicate with visible churches, but only because we visibly discern that they have communion with Christ.” – p. 86
A Second Manuduction for Mr. [John] Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former in an answer to his manumission (Amsterdam, 1615) 35 pp. no ToC
“The state of our question througout this dispute is whether all public communion in the parish assemblies of England be unlawful or no?” – p. 28
Gilgate, William – Certain Reasons, proving the Separation, commonly called Brownists, to be Schismatics (London: Stansby, 1621) 10 pp. ToC
Gilgate was an English minister.
Randall, John – pp. 225-30 of Lecture 29 in Twenty-Nine Lectures of the Church… (d. 1622; London, 1631) Randall (1570–1622) was an English puritan.
Sibbes, Richard – A Consolatory Letter to an Afflicted Conscience Full of Pious Admonitions & Divine Instructions (d. 1635; London, 1641) 6 pp. The first half deals with an afflicted conscience; the second half argues against separatism.
Sibbes (c.1577-1635) was a conforming, Anglican puritan.
Rutherford, Samuel – Against Separatism, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4 Part 1 is from Rutherford’s Due Right of Presbytery (1644). Parts 2-4 are from his A Peacable & Temperate Plea (1642)
Certain Westminster Divines – Certain Considerations to Dissuade Men from Further Gathering of Churches in this Present Juncture of Time. Subscribed by [21] Diverse Divines of the [Westminster] Assembly (London, 1643) 5 pp.
Rathband, William – A Brief Narration of Some Church Courses Held in Opinion & Practice in the Churches Lately Erected in New England: Collected out of Sundry of their own Printed Papers… Together with some… of their Correspondence with the like Tenets & Practices of the Separatists’ Churches… (London, 1644) 55 pp. no ToC
Prynne was an Erastian and semi-Presbyterian. John Goodwin was a latitudinarian Arminian.
Pagitt, Ephraim – ‘Of the Brownists’ in Heresiography, or a Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times (London: Wilson, 1645), pp. 48-76
Brinsley, Jr., John – The Araignment of the Present Schism of New Separation in Old England. Together with a serious Recommendation of Church-Unity & Uniformity… (London: John Field, 1646) 75 pp. ToC
Brinsley (1600-1665) was an English nonconforming presbyterian clergyman and an ejected minister in 1662.
** Fergusson, James – Section 5, ‘The Doctrine of Separation Tried, & Found Not to be of God’ in A Brief Refutation of the Errors of Toleration, Erastianism, Independency & Separation, Delivered in Sermons on 1 Jn. 4:1 (1652), pp. 191-365
Fergusson was a Scottish covenanter and Resolutioner.
Scottish Protesters – Protesters’ Declaration or Exhortation to the Separatists in Aberdeen (1653) 7 pp.
Wood, James – ‘Separation from Corrupt Churches’ (1654) 12 long paragraphs.
Wood was a professor of theology at St. Andrews in Scotland with Samuel Rutherford
Leigh, Edward – A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 4
pp. 354-55 of ch. 17. ‘Of… Division…’
pp. 376-77 of ch. 22. ‘Of… Schism’
Durham, James
The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal, Part 2
Ch. 13, ‘Shewing more particularly what it is that private persons are called to in such a case’
Ch. 14, ‘Clearing whether the Ordinances of Christ be any way polluted by corrupt fellow-worshippers’
Ch. 15, ‘Showing if any thing further in any imaginable case be allowed to private Christians’
Commentary on Revelation, pp. 172-73
Hall, Thomas – section 18, ‘They Separate Themselves from the True Churches of Christ’ in ch. 7, ‘Of the Peculiar Manner & Form of Speech used by the Quintinists (i.e. a pack of Libertines then living)’ in A Practical & Polemical Commentary, or, Exposition upon the Third & Fourth Chapters of the Latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy… (London, 1658), on 2 Tim. 3:8, pp. 166-67
“The Pharises were rigid separatists and quarrelled with Christ because He would not separate, but was a friend to publicans and sinners, Lk. 15:27-28. They pretend they abhor a mixed company, and yet they revile and fly from real saints. They are all for gathering churches out of churches, which is the very way to destroy churches. How do we destroy houses but by pulling one stone and one piece from another?” – pp. 166-67
Brown, John, of Wamphray – ‘The Universal Visible Church’ (1670) 2 pp.
Scrivener, Matthew – ch. 47 in A Course of Divinity… (London: Roycroft, 1674), pt. 1, bk. 1
Scrivener (fl. 1660) was an Anglican clegyman.
This is a very careful and extended discussion of schism, with metaphysical detail.
“And though there may be many and just causes for a separation, there can be no cause to justify a schism: For schism is in its nature: A studious separation (or state-separate) against Christian charity, upon no sufficient cause or grounds.” – p. 228
Hale, Matthew – Tractate of Schism (d. 1676)
Corbet, John – ‘The Nonconformist’s Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England, etc.’ in The Nonconformist’s Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England, together with a Modest Defence of Ministerial Nonconformity… (London: Parkhurst, 1683), pp. 5-10
Corbet (1620-1680) was an English, congregationalist puritan, friends with Richard Baxter. Corbet is very good on the issue.
The older non-conformists, according to Baxter, inclusive of Corbet, separated on principle from the Anglican city or diocesan churches, which had many more and greater corruptions in them, but not from the rural churches, which had less.
Baxter, Richard
ch. 8, ‘Directions for the Union and Communion of Saints, and the avoiding unpeaceableness and schism’ in A Christian Directory (1673), pt. 3, pp. 731-54
Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684)
pp. 9-15 of section 2
This list of theses is very good in general, even if one may disagree with a few particulars. See most of the theses typed out at ‘Principles of Union & Separation about Church Assemblies with Impurities of Worship in Them’.
Baxter is justifying both ministers administering, and laypersons attending and using, under certain circumstances, a faulty liturgy (the Anglican Prayer-Book service) when the benefits outweigh the alternative (including possible civil repurcussions). He did not believe there was anything strictly sinful in using the liturgy, at least for the morning and evening services of the Lord’s Day.
To make his argument, Baxter uses a comparison from events in England in the puritan era, as well as Christ, the apostles and the Jews in their day using the Septuagint, a significantly faulty Bible translation. Baxter himself did suffer much for keeping up a congregational church that did not use the Anglican liturgy.
ch. 58, ‘Whether Communion with so Faulty a Church be Lawful’ in The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 224-33
Turretin, Francis – 4. ‘Do unbaptized catechumens, the excommunicated and schismatics belong to the church? We distinguish.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 18th Topic, p. 23 ff.
Cameronian Ministers – Head IV, sections 1-2 of The Informatory Vindication (1687)
Section 1 lays out eight distinctions. Section 2 lays out six insufficient grounds for withdrawing from ministers in their day in Scotland. Both of these sections are right, Biblical, helpful and reflective of the 2nd Reformation in Scotland.
However, we do not agree with the Cameronians in all things (who were some of the most separatistic Christians in Church history), especially in sections 3-5, which sections are not wholly reflective of the 2nd Reformation in Scotland. To give an example:
The Vindication says in Head IV, section 3: “IX. We judge scandalous disorders & miscarriages, in either the ministerial or personal walk, carriage, or conversation of ministers, are a sufficient ground to withdraw from them.”
Rutherford and the 2nd Reformation in Scotland firmly held against the Separatists: “5th Conclusion, it is not lawful to separate from an worship of the Church for the sins of the fellow-worshippers, whether they be officers or private Christians.” Rutherford goes on to prove this with many Biblical examples in A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (1642), pp. 132-49
Henry, Matthew – A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism: or a Persuasive to Christian Love & Charity… (London: Parkhurst, 1690) 34 pp.
“The common outcry is that it is the setting up of ‘altar against altar,’ which is not so, for at the most it is but altar by altar; and though I have often read of one Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope, and one Lord, and one Faith, and one Baptism, and one God and Father (Eph. 4:4-6), yet I could never find a word in all the New Testament of one altar, except Jesus Christ, Heb. 13:10, the Altar that sanctifies every gift, in whom we all centre. And if there be any of the dissenters who are schismatical, i.e. contentious, bitter, and uncharitable in their separation, let them bear their own burden; but by my presence with them I encourage that in them no more than I do too much of a like spirit in too many of those who are called the Church of England men, by my adherence to them.
To conclude, by all this it is evident that unity of affection is the thing to be labored after more than uniformity in modes and ceremonies. We have been long enough trying to root schism out of the Church, vi et armis, by impositions, fines, and penalties, choking our brethren because their throats have not been so wide as ours; and it has been found ineffectual, even in the judgment of our great Sanhedrim, who have declared that giving ease to scrupulous consciences is the likeliest way to unite their Majesty’s protestant subjects in interest and affection.
What if we should now try another method, and turn the stream of our endeavors into another channel? Hitherto we have been as it were striving which should hate one another most; what if we should now strive which should love one another best, and be most ready to do all offices of true charity and kindness, and bury all our little feuds and animosities in that blessed grave of Christian love and charity?
What if we should every one of us of each party (as we have been too often called) set ourselves by our preaching to promote and propagate the Gospel of peace, and by our prayers to prevail with God for a more plentiful pouring out of the Spirit of peace, that the dividing names of Baalim may be taken out of our mouths, and that however it goes with uniformity of ceremony, we may keep the unity of the Spirit; and then I doubt not but we should soon see our English Jerusalem established a praise in the midst of the earth.
And yet I am afraid even saints will be men; there will be remainders even of those corruptions which are the seed of schism, in the best, till we all come to the perfect man. And that is the comfort of my soul, that if we can but once get to heaven we shall be forever out of the noise and hurry of this quarrelsome, contentious, dividing world, and the Church Triumphant shall be no more militant; but that happy world of everlasting light will be a world of everlasting love.” – pp. 32-34
Rule, Gilbert – sect. 10 in The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), pp. 245-64 Rule was a Scottish divine-right presbyterian.
“It is observed by the learned and reverend [Edward] Stillingfleet, Irenic, p. 108, that the word ‘schism’ (though it sound harsh, it being often taken in an ill sense) as it imports a separation from a Church, is not a thing intrinsically evil in itself, but is capable of the differences of good and evil, according to the ground, reasons, ends, and circumstances inducing to such a separation; the withdrawing from a society is but the materiality of schism; the formality of it must be fetched from the grounds on which that is built.
He cites also another author, observing that heresy and schism as they are commonly used, are two theological scarecrows with which they who would uphold a party in religion use to fright away such, as making enquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either erroneous or suspicious.
§2…. it is needful to premise a few things:
1. Schism is a breach of unity; and therefore, there can be no schism where there ought to be no unity; yea, where there need be no unity, or where there can be no unity.
Wherefore that we may under∣stand what schism is, it is needful to consider what unity should, and must be among Churches, and among Christians. There are several sorts of unity, that we cannot have with all Churches, as local communion: some that we need not have, as identity of rites: some that we ought not to have with some Churches, as communion in false doctrine, or impure worship.
2. The unity of the Church may be considered in all the notions in which the Church is considered, or in all the sorts of Churches: In the catholic Church, visible and invisible, in all the combinations of Churches among themselves, national, provincial, classical and in particular congregations. It is an undue notion of unity and schism that Independents have, that they are only to be considered as in a particular congregation.
3. Unity consists in joining with and cleaving to the Church in all these acts of communions with her that the Lord has made our duty, so that it is not only schism to depart from a Church (without just cause) that we have been joined to, but not to join with some society of Christians when it is possible for us and when we can do it without sin; the former may be called a positive, this a negative separation.
4. Schism may be also called positive or negative in another sense; the former [negative] when a party in a Church, does not join with the Church, yet sets up no Church in a separated way from that Church whereof they were members: the latter [positive], when they set up such a distinct society; there may be just causes for both:
The first, when I cannot join with the congregation I belong to because of some corruption that I must partake of if I join, but I partake with some other more pure society;
The second, when a body of people cannot join without sin, nor can they have the occasion of a society where they might join; they must either live without ordinances or set up another religious society; on this ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches.
5. There may be a partial separation when one ordinance is so corrupted that we cannot join in it, and yet can join with the Church in all other acts of communion: and a total separation, when either the Church will not suffer us to join with her in any part of her service unless we join in all; or she is so corrupt that we can join with her in nothing that is religous.
The former by most wise and sober men is not reckoned such a schism as that any are to be blamed as schismatics on that account; but the author I now debate with aggravates that even to a very high degree of schism, as also do many of his partizans, driving many consciencious and good men from them for the sake of some usages which themselves count indifferent and the others apprehend to be unlawful.
6. The differences in opinion about religious matters, especially when managed with heat and animosities may be called schism, according to the import of the word; yet in the usual ecclesiastical notion of schism, they are not to be so reputed unless some kind of separation or shuning the ordinary Church communion one with another follow upon them.
Diversity of opinion and of affection are sinful evils, but it is diversity of religious practice, following on these, that makes Church-schism.
7. When a separation falls out in a Church, the guilt of it does certainly lie on the one side or the other, and often neither side is wholly innocent.
They who have cause to separate may manage their good cause by evil methods and in a way that is not wholly commendable: now to know on which side the blame of the schism lies, we must not always conclude that they are in the fault:
1. Who are the fewer number; otherwise most reformations of the Church were sinful: Nor,
2. Who separate from the Church rulers, themselves being in possession of Church authority: for this should condemn our Reformation from Popery; Nor,
3. Who separate from that party that has the countenance of civil authority, and has the law on its side; not only because it is the Gospel, not the law of the land, that is the rule of our religion, and Church practice, but also because that is variable, and by that rule, they who were the sound party one year, may be schismatics the other; without any change in their principles or practice, which is absurd.
Wherefore the blame of schism, in that case, lies only on them who has the wrong side of that controverted matter about which they divide; or who, though their opinion be better than that of the opposite party, yet depart from the communion of their brethren without sufficient cause, everything that we may justly blame, not being sufficient for making a rent in the Church.
Hence it plainly follows that men’s assuming to themselves the name of the Church is not sufficient ground for them to brand such as schismatics who depart from their communion: Where truth and Gospel purity is, there is the Church, and they who have most of these are the soundest Church.
§3. Having laid this foundation for discerning what is truly schism, and where the blame of it lies: I shall next enquire into the opinion of the ancient Church about schism:”
.
On the 1600’s
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 27, ‘The Church’, sections 20-22 of Reformed Dogmatics (rep. Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 670-72
Heppe quotes Calvin, Wolleb, Olevian, Mastricht & Heidegger.
Walker, James – The Theology & Theologians of Scotland of the 17th & 18th Centuries, pp. 108 ff. (1888)
See especially p. 109-114 on the separatist views of the 1680’s covenanter James Renwick and the reasons for the other covenanter ministers, Shields, Lining and Boyd, entering the 1689 Church. While one is at it, read all of chapter four on the Doctrine of the Visible Church in 1600′s Scotland.
Walker was a theologian of the Free Church of Scotland.
.
1700’s
A’Brakel, Wilhelmus – ‘The Duty to Join the Church and to Remain with Her’ (1700) 31 pp. being ch. 25 in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, pp. 55-86 Buy
Tallents, Francis
A Sure & Large Foundation (1689?) A copy of this was given by Tallents to the school library at Shrewsbury, in 1696, but the work is not otherwise known.
Tallents (1619–1708) was a non-conforming English presbyterian minister. This work was recommended by James Owen.
A Short History of Schism: for the Promoting of Christian Moderation & the Communion of Saints (London: Parkhurst, 1705) 128 pp. ToC
“And sometimes the main reason why they [presbyterians] go to worship God with them is to show they hold communion with them; that though there be many things amiss, against which they bear a real testimony by their non-conformity, yet they go to them to show to the world they separate not from them, and the better to maintain that spiritual love which ought to be among the members of the churches of Christ.” – p. 108
“For some say they [presbyterians] are not to do so [practice occasional communion] because we are bound always to do that in the worship of God which is best, and there cannot be two bests. Therefore since they judge their own way to be best, they ought always to go in it and never to join with any others, neither with the Church by law established [in England], or any others.
This is somewhat plausible, seems a strong argument to some, but is far from it. For persons and churches that are better than others are to own others, if built on the true foundation, and [are] to impose no intolerable things for true, though [on] distempered churches, and to strive to hold an outward communion with them, the stronger and better with the weaker, and (much more) the weaker [ought to hold outward communion] with the better and stronger.
Therefore the presbyterians think themselves bound to join sometimes with the conformists, though they judge their own way better than theirs; and that in doing so sometimes, they do that which is best.” – p. 110
Some Few Considerations upon Mr. S.G.’s Large Answer to the Short History of Schism… (London: W. Boulter, 1706) 55 pp. ToC
Samuel Grascome (d. 1708) was a clergyman of the Church of England, then, after the nonjuring schism, a member of the breakaway church.
Boston, Thomas – ‘The Evil, Nature & Danger of Schism: a Sermon, 1 Cor. 1:10’ (1708) 54 paragraphs
In the first half of this sermon Boston lays out the principles of unity from the text and defines what schism is. In the second half Boston argues against those who remained separate from the Church of Scotland in his own day upon pretence of the Solemn League and Covenant and other impurities in the Church of Scotland post-1689.
De Moor, Bernard – ch. 3, section 17, ‘On Schism’ in A Continuous Commentary on John Marck’s Compendium of Didactic & Elenctic Christian Theology, vol. 1 Buy (Leiden, 1761-71), ch. 3, ‘On Religion’
.
1900’s
MacPherson, John – ‘Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism’ (1901) 43 paragraphs from The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology
MacPherson was a minister in the Free Church of Scotland in the late 1800’s who here masterfully surveys the thought on the broadest unity of the church during the second reformation in Scotland (mid-1600’s).
.
2000’s
Winzer, Matthew – ‘A Review of Greg Barrow’s The Covenanted Reformation Defended‘ (2006) 18 paragraphs
The jist of the Still Waters Revival’s claims, according to Dr. Richard Bacon, is that “they maintain that we can treat churches that lack the full well-being of the church just as we would treat a false church. Then they define full well-being as including the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) and several other documents that they refer to as ‘terms of communion.’
.
Books
1500’s
Gifford, George
A Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, whom we call Brownists, wherein, by the Answers unto Certain Writings of theirs, Diverse of their Heresies are Noted, with Sundry Fantastical Opinions… (London, 1590) 110 pp. ToC
Gifford (c. 1548–1600 or 1620?) was a non-conformist, English, puritan preacher at Maldon in Essex, England.
John Greenwood replied to this work in, An Answer to George Gifford’s Pretended Defence.
A Plain Declaration that our Brownists be Full Donatists by Comparing them Together from Point to Point out of the Writings of Augustine. Also a Reply to Master Greenwood touching Read Prayer, wherein his Gross Ignorance is Detected… (London, 1590) 126 pp. ToC
This work is in reply to John Greenwood’s, An Answer to George Gifford’s Pretended Defence…, which was a reply to Gifford’s, A Short Treatise…
A Short Reply unto the Last Printed Books of Henry Barrow & John Greenwood, the Chief Ringleaders of our Donatists in England. Wherein is laid Open their Gross Ignorance & Foul Errors: upon which their Whole Building is Founded (London, 1591) 98 pp. ToC
.
1600’s
English Puritans – A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025) 300 pp. with an Extended Intro by Travis Fentiman: “Defending the Lawfulness of Partial-Conformity in Worship & Church Government (including under Civil Impositions) from Scripture, Westminster & the Scottish Indulgence Controversy, contra George Gillespie, while Driving against Denominationalism, for the Unifying of Christ’s Church”
The moderate puritans are often looked upon as compromisers in partially conforming to things not wholly right in the Church (and State); yet their reasons for this are little known.
This newly edited book from the archives is a one of a kind jewel. Written by a group of unnamed English reformed ministers (in the trajectory of divine-right presbyterianism), they defend their outlook from the Scriptures while arguing against both the Conformists and Separatists, while preserving the Church as one (Jn. 17:20–23) in the fundamentals of the Faith, without sacrificing principles.
The Extended Introduction by Travis Fentiman (MDiv) sets forth the Scriptural case for principled partial conformity in worship and Church government, against the Scottish minister George Gillespie. It also documents that most of the Westminster divines were conformists to some degree under pain of ministerial deprivation, and shows how partial conformity is consistent with the Westminster standards. The surprising breadth of Westminster’s parameters on worship is historically brought to light in consideration of its original intent.
The fascinating untold story of the indulged covenanting ministers in Scotland during 1669-1688, those who partially conformed to the undue impositions of the civil government, is narrated and defended from Scripture, especially against the arguments of that ultra non-conformist, John Brown of Wamphray. The civil dethroning principles of the 1680’s Scottish Cameronians are shown to be erroneous and contrary to the reformed, puritan and covenanting tradition as especially summed up in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (1644).
An honest and not simplistic view the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) is surveyed, drawing on some of the latest historical research, supporting the partial conforming trajectory.
Lastly, the Extended Intro drives against denominationalism and the wrong-headedness of erecting denominational white towers, seeking the unifying of Christ’s Church through the catholic principles of Scripture, Westminster, the Scots and the London presbyterians. Church union in (at least) Christianity’s fundamentals will be seen to oblige from God’s Word, as many of the reformed, the London presbyterians and the Scottish covenanter James Durham taught. Separation for secondary matters that do not tend to overturn the fundamentals is seen to be schism (notwithstanding your denomination’s constitution, vows, covenants, etc.).
See the first several pages of the Extended Intro for what other things are treated of and argued in the book. Theological treasures are yours for the reaping; take up and read!
Bernard, Richard
Christian Advertisements & Counsels of Peace, Also Dissuasions from the Separatists’ Schism, Commonly Called Brownism, which is Set Apart from such Truths as they take from us & other Reformed Churches, & is Nakedly Discovered, that so the Falsity Thereof May Better be Discerned & so Justly Condemned & Wisely Avoided (1608) 192 pp. ToC
Bernard (1568–1641) was an reformed, English, non-conforming but anti-separatist, puritan minister. He was also a Cambridge graduate and a prolific, religious writer. He wrote a tract opposing the Anglican Prayer-Book.
He was presbyterian in his ideal, as is seen in his ‘A Short Draught of Church Government’ in A Short View of the Prælatical Church of England, wherein is set forth the Horrible Abuses in Discipline & Government (London, 1641). Bernard also has works against episcopalianism.
“Bernard was brought into union and communion with the separatists, but treacherously and basely as they alleged, conscientiously as he himself affirmed, withdrew from them. Thereupon commenced his invectives and their replies.” – DNB
“His daughter Mary married Roger Williams, co-founder of the state of Rhode Island, in 1629.” – Wikipedia
Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, the Separation Schismatical. Directed Against Mr. [Henry] Ainsworth the Separatist, & Mr. Smith the Se-baptist: both of them severally opposing the Book Called ‘The Separatists’ Schism’ ([London, 1610]) 336 pp. ToC
32 Questions (1639)
“Meanwhile [near the same time as the inquiring letter from the Old England ministers was received by the New England churches], New England churches received another similar inquiry from Richard Bernard of Batcombe, who proposed “Thirty-Two Questions.”
In reply, Richard Mather provided an answer under the title Church Government and Church Covenant Discussed (1643). Compared with the “Nine Propositions,” [of the Old England ministers] Bernard’s “Thirty-Two Questions” are more sophisticated, which are designed to find both the theological and the biblical foundation of the Congregational practices.” – Sang Ahn, Covenant in Conflict, pp. 57
For more of the context, before and after this, see our page on Congregationalism & Independency.
Hall, Joseph – A Common Apology of the Church of England against the Unjust Challenges of the over-just Sect, commonly called Brownists… (London: Macham, 1610) 145 pp. ToC
4 Former Brownists – The Profane Schism of the Brownists or Separatists, with the Impiety, Dissensions, Lewd and abominable vices of that impure sect, discovered by Christopher Lawne, John Fowler, Clement Sanders, Robert Bulward, lately returned from the company of Mr. [Francis] Johnson, that wicked brother, into the bosom of the Church of England, their true Mother (London: Stansby, 1612) 88 pp. ToC
Bradshaw, William & Another – The Unreasonableness of the Separation made Apparent, in an Examination of, and answer to certain reasons of Mr. Francis Johnson: whereby he labours to justify his schism from the Church Assemblies of England, by Mr. William Bradshaw deceased. Together with a rejoinder, in defence of the said answer against the late reply of Mr. John Canne (a leader to a company of Brownists in Amsterdam) thereunto, by a friend of the deceased (1614; Amsterdam, 1640) 149 pp. ToC with a preface by William Ames
“Read therefore with understanding, and learn a mean betwixt all and nothing.” – Ames, Preface, p. 1
Paget, John – An Arrow Against the Separation of the Brownists (1618) 337 pp.
Ball, John
A Friendly Trial of the Grounds Tending to Separation in a Plain and Modest Dispute… (1640)
Ball (1585–1640) was an English, reformed puritan divine, known for his treatise on the Covenant of Grace. He also wrote heavily against Separatism and Independency. See especially:
An Answer to Two Treatises of Mr. John Can, the Leader of the English Brownists in Amsterdam (1642) 144 pp. ToC
Ashe, Simeon, William Rathband, John Ball et al. – A Trial of the New-Church Way in New-England & in Old… Sent Over to the New England Ministers, 1637, as a Reply to an Answer of Theirs in Justification of the Said Positions… IA (1637 & 1643/44)
“It is obvious that the Puritans, who obtained the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Company from Charles I and came to New England in 1630, were not Separatists. They, though being non-conformists, considered themselves as loyal members of the Church of England. Secession or separation from the national church, for them, was a sin of schism. Nevertheless, in less than seven years, Puritans in the mother country began to hear that their brethren in New England actually followed the ways of the Separatists.
Accordingly, in 1637, a formal and written communication was made, in which Puritans in England put forward “Nine Propositions,” to which their “Reverend and beloved Brethren” in the New World replied in 1639. This early debate was compiled by Simeon Ash and William Rathband and, four years later, published with John Ball’s ‘Reply’, under the title ‘A Letter of Many Ministers in Old England’…
The main purpose of these propositions was to find whether or not the New England brethren actually adopted the methods of the Separatists which they once denounced before they left England…
Many ministers in Old England… were surprised at the rumor about their brethren’s sudden turn to Separatism. Particularly, they were frightened when they received a report that the above nine propositions were practiced by New Englander ‘as the only Church way, wherein the Lord is to be worshipped.’
Of course, this report seemed to be exaggerated. Thus, John Cotton, representing “the Elders of the Churches in New England,” provided an answer to this letter in which he assured them that New England Congregational churches had nothing to do with “the ways of rigid separation.”…
Cotton’s above answer was sent to England in 1639 and Ball’s comments and reply were finished by 1640. For some reason, however, their works were not published until 1643.” – Sang Ahn, Covenant in Conflict, pp. 54-57
Abbot, Robert – A Trial of our Church-Forsakers, or a Meditation tending to still the passions of unquiet Brownists, upon Heb. 10:25, wherein is iustified against them that the blessed Church of England: 1 Is a true Church. 2. Has a true ministry. 3. Has a true worship (London: Payne, 1639) 249 pp. ToC
Abbot (c. 1588 – c. 1662) appears to have been a partially conforming English puritan divine.
Edwards, Thomas
Antapologia, or a Full Answer to the Apologetical Narration of Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Sympson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Bridge… Wherein is handled Many of the Controversies of these Times… 9. Of Separation & Schism… (London, 1644) 307 pp.
The Casting Down of the Last & Strongest Hold of Satan. Or a Treatise Against Toleration & Pretended Liberty of Conscience: wherein by Scripture, Sound Reason, Fathers, Schoolmen, Casuists, Protestant Divines of All Nations… yea, by Diverse Principles, Testimonies & Proceedings of Sectaries Themselves, as Donatists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Independents… (London, 1647) 218 pp. ToC
Baillie, Robert
The first two chapters of this are about and against the Brownists. Chapters 3-6 are on and against the Independents, largely about their separation.
Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, Brownism, Antinomianism, Familism & the Most of the Other Errors (which for the Time do Trouble the Church of England) Unsealed (1647) 179 pp. ToC
Firmin (1614–1697) was initially ordained as a deacon in New England at the first congregationalist church, of John Cotton. He was also a physician. In returning to England he became ordained as a minister by Stephen Marshall and others after being appointed to an Anglican vicarage. Firmin was a royalist and for the parochial system. In this work, p. 96, he says he agrees most with the Church government described by Rutherford and Gillespie, though a little cross to congregationalist principles. He (possibly after 1654?) may have found acceptable Richard Baxter’s synthesis of low-episcopacy and congregationalism. He was ejected in 1662.
Lawrence, Richard – Gospel-Separation Separated from its Abuses; or the Saints’ Guide in Gospel-Fellowship: whereby they may be Directed not only to Preserve the Purity, but withal the Unity of Gospel-Worship: by a well-wisher to Sion’s Purity and Unity (London: Calvert, 1657) 144 pp. ToC
This appears to be good. Lawrence appears to have been an Independent aligned with the Cromwellian enterprise, who went over to Ireland, wrote this treatise, and remained there till his death in 1684.
Crofton, Zachary – Reformation, Not Separation, or, Mr. Crofton’s Plea for Communion with the Church… in a Letter, written July 20, 1661… (1662) 74 pp.
Crofton (1626-1672) was reformed, a presbyterian and a puritan who was born and raised in Ireland. He came to England in 1646. He was ejected from the Church of England at the Restoration.
“let it be considered in steering this course, using this liberty and holding [lay] communion [but not ministerial] with this very [Anglican] Church, under these very corruptions and by attendance on this very order of service and solemn public worship: I am not without the caution and conduct of the sober, godly, learned promoters and pursuers of a perfect and complete reformation:
The reformed Churches beyond the seas and in Scotland obtained higher degrees of reformation, and more purity of ordinances, than did England (for power and dominion the chiefest reformed Church) yet these never did disown or decline communion with her, nor advise any her members thereunto, yet they did often rebuke and complain of her lukewarm hesitation in the degrees of reformation obtained, and retention of those corruptions which ought to have been expelled among ourselves…” – p. 43
Baxter, Richard
Church Concord, containing: I. A Dissuasive from Unnecessary Division & Separation, & the Real Concord of the Moderate Independents with the Presbyterians, instanced in Ten seeming Differences. II. The Terms Necessary for Concord among all True Churches & Christians… (1655 / 1667; London: 1691) 76 pp. ToC 1, 2
Baxter is in general very good on the issues. His main positions he sums up:
“X. The Separatists call me to repentance for separating no further from the conformists than they force us from them, and separate themselves from necessary truth: And for persuading men to communion with the parish assemblies [but not necessarily the city cathedral worship].
XI. The Conforming Separatists call me to repentance for not separating from all save themselves, and for knowing and owning those to be true members of the Church of England, and faithful servants of Christ, whom they eject.” (Richard Baxter’s Penitent Confession, p. 5)
A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw, written to call him to repentance for many false doctrines, crimes & specially fourscore palpable untruths in matter of fact… with a confutation of his reasons for Separation (London, 1671) 190 pp. ToC
The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679) 340 pp. ToC
The Second Part of the Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, being an Account of their Principles about Civil & Ecclesiastical Authority & Obedience… (1680) 204 pp. ToC
pt. 3, ‘Of Schism’ in The True & only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches, the Desirableness of it & the Detection of False Dividing Terms (London: Hancock, 1680), separately paginated, 144 pp.
Richard Baxter’s Answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet’s Charge of Separation, containing: I. Some Queries Necessary for the Understanding of his Accusation, II. A Reply to his Letter which Denies a Solution, III. An Answer to his Printed Sermon… (London: 1680) 100 pp. ToC
An Apology for the Nonconformists’ Ministry, containing: I. the Reasons of their Preaching, II. an Answer to the accusations urged as reasons for the silencing of about 2000… III. Reasons proving it the Duty and interest of the Bishops and Conformists to endeavour earnestly their restoration… (1668-1669; 1675; London: 1681) 249 pp. ToC
Baxter did not hold that unjustly defrocked ministers were to preach any and everywhere, but only where there was real need and justification for it, preserving and encouraging the regular parish ministry so far as able, and complementing it, due to the great need in England at that time and in those circumstances.
“6. We believe that lawful rulers have power to forbid such ministers to preach in this or that place, or anywhere in their dominions, whose preaching is such as tends to do more harm than good.
7. Had we any reasonable conviction that our ministry is unnecessary, we would obey our rulers, though they silenced us causlessly, and would seek some other place or way of serving God.
8. In those times, places, and circumstances which persuade us that more hurt than good will come by it if we preach, we will then and there forbear it, though it be not as an act of formal obedience, nor a desertion of our office, or of the exercise of it at other times.
9. We judge it our duty to further the good success of the conformable ministers to the utmost of our power.
10. And we take schism to be a great sin, and that which we are bound to do the best we can not only to avoid ourselves, but to cure or hinder in others.” – p. 240
Schism Detected in both Extremes, or Two Sorts of Sinful Separation, the First Part detects the Schismatical Principles of a Resolver of Three Cases about Church-Communion, the Second Part confutes the Separation Pleaded for in a book famed to be written by Mr. Raphson (London: 1684) 76 pp. ToC
Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen ed. Travis Fentiman (RBO, 2024) 87 pp.
Baxter, in this newly cleaned up piece, demolishes the principles of Separatism, against John Owen. Owen had written a tract arguing for separation, at least for those who had “engaged unto reformation,” from ever attending the Anglican liturgy. In it Owen uses principles that may sound like the height of righteousness, but are separatist. Baxter (rightly) convicts him of 42 errors.
The article has an editor’s Introduction which tells the intriguing story behind the piece. If you have interest in Church and worship issues, you will learn a lot.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689) 304 pp. ToC The preface is dated 1683.
Richard Baxter’s Penitent Confession & his Necessary Vindication in Answer to a book called, The second part of the mischiefs of separation, written by an unnamed author with a preface to Mr. Cantianus D. Minimis, in answer to his letter which extorted this publication (London, 1691) 89 pp. ToC
Fullwood, Francis – The Doctrine of Schism Fully Opened & Applied to Gathered Churches, occasioned by a book entitled, Sacrilegious Desertion of the Holy Ministery Rebuked; & Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated (London: 1672) 175 pp. ToC
Fullwood (d. 1693) was a conformed Anglican clergyman. This was written against non-conformists.
ToC
1. Intro; the answerer’s title and the impertinency of it
2. The answerer’s description of himself: his abusive terms touching non-conformity, and his mistake of Armagh’s reduction: those that offer’d it, 1660, were no less presbyterians: his change of the question
3. I did not exhort them to desert their office, as he affirms; his manner of censuring less errors; about toleration; the author’s kindness to non-conformists
4. Tis not fair to charge consequences for doctrines; much less to say, the consequence is asserted; let the answerer be judge; Mr. Baxter was not abused
5. The consequence of deserting their office from their not gathering, disproved as not good either according to the author’s principles, or the answerer’s, or the nature of the thing itself
6. The question is first stated, not unintellgible; Now again cleared and freed from his exceptions
7. Gathering-churches charged with schism from the Church of England, and proved to be so from the definition of this Church. Wherein he is told what the Church of England, and Schism from it, is
8. What schism from the Church of England is, and whether gathering of Churches, as now is practiced, be not guilty of it
9. Gathering churches, a schism from particular parochial churches; the general nature of schism
10. The differencing nature of schism; the answerer’s objections answered; especially the preaching of the ejected ministers
11. Provision for the proof of the assumption, by four propositions
12. Parochial congregations true churches; his exceptions, especially about parish bounds, examined
13. The people of England, members of parochial churches; objections answered, especially that from serving God better
14. The present practice plain separation; objecti∣ons by the answerer considered
15. The present practice of Separation and gathering churches is causeless and unwaranta∣ble; objections of the answerer considered
16. Further proof that the practice is schism, by way of reply to his objections against it
17. More direct proof that this practice is schism; with considering the principles upon which they seperate
18. Testimonies of non-conformists for the same
19. Gathering of churches ought not to be practiced as now it is, either in conscience or prudence; objections answered
20. More particular address to the answer, a friendly expostulation about his hard words and dealing; we must preach; and we may gather churches to serve God better: two great cheats, a desire he would detect them
London Ministers – A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London… 2 vols. In 1 (London, 1685) ToC 1, 2
While one may disagree with some minor points throughout the work, yet these two volumes in one are excellent and some of the best writings on the topic, often quoting heavily from standard reformed divines.
.
1700’s
Currie, John
An Essay on Separation: in which the Chief Things in the Testimonies of these Reverend Brethren who Lately made a Secession from Her are Considered… to be No Ground of Separation or Secession Ref (Edinburgh: Lumsden, 1738) 224 pp.
Currie (c. 1679 – 1765) was a staunch evangelical Church of Scotland minister who argues in the two books against the Secession Church of Scotland. He was:
“a friend and correspondent of Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, sharing their spiritual and ecclesiastical ideals but strongly opposed to securing them through secession. He regarded the Secession of 1733 as an unwarranted violation of the unity of the CoS.” – DSCHT, p. 231
A Vindication of the Real Reformation-Principles of the Church of Scotland concerning Separation, etc., in which The Essay on Separation is vindicated; and the arguments of the Reverend Mr. Wilson,for Separation from this Established Church, in his Defence, are considered, where sundry Anti-Reformation Principles are noticed; and many things neither truth, nor matter of fact in the Testimony of the Seceding Brethren are discovered and collected, to which, in an Appendix, a further argument against separation, taken from the conduct of the famous martyr Mr. James Guthrie, and other Protesters in his day is largely insisted on (Edinburgh: Alison, 1740) 360 pp. no ToC Index Errata Transcription
To the Reader
Intro 1
1. General Observations on Wilson’s Defence 3
2. Remarks upon the Preface 11
3. On the Intro 29
4. On the 1st Chapter & State of the Question 37
. Sect. 2, Mistating of the Question & Charge of Lax Principles
. anent Church-Communion 38
. Sect. 3, State of the Question 70
5. On 2nd Chapter, Secession’s Arguments for Separation shown to be Insufficient 82
. Sect. 1, That the Church of Scotland is Not the Pillar of Truth 82
. Sect. 2, That she is Tyrannical in Administration & Discipline 106
. Sect. 3, May be a Minister without being chosen to a Particular Congregation 120
. Sect. 4, Charge of Imposing Unwarrantable Terms of Communion on Members 130
. Sect. 5, For all the Church’s Faults, Erecting a Distinct Judicatory in Opposition can never be Justified, having no Scripture-Warrant, nor approved by Former Times 137
. Sect. 6, Conduct of CoS since 1733: No Just Ground of Secession 156
6. On 3rd Chapter, Arguments against Separation 174
. Sect. 1, Scripture Arguments 176
. Sect. 2, Human Authorities 185
. Sect. 3, Historical, 1597-1638 198
[sic] 6. On 4th Chapter, Historical, 1638-1650 238
. Sect. 1, Differene of Procedure in 1638 vs. 1690 240
. Sect. 2, On 1638 252
. Sect. 3, On 1638-1650 279
7. On 5th Chapter, Criticisms of Secession’s Act & Testimony 313
8. Criticisms of Act & Testimony as a Term of Communion 330
Addenda, pp. 161 & 280 341
Advertisement 344
Appendix: Observations on Papers of James Guthrie: the Protesters were opposite to the Principle & Practice of Seceders 345-60
.
.
Quotes
Order of
Augustine
Aquinas
Zanchi
Cameron
Rutherford
Aberdeen Doctors
Gillespie
Burroughs
London Presbyterians
Jeanes
Durham
ICMA
Bardie
Corbet
Baxter
Goodwin
Bairdie
Vilant
Brian
Vines
Jenkins
London Ministers
Turretin
Baxter
Rule
Brakel
Tallents
Boston
Cooper
Fentiman
.
400’s
Attributed to Augustine
“The Church is a whore, but she’s my mother.”
.
1200’s
On Aquinas
Anthony Walaeus, Synopsis of Pure Theology, disp. 40, §41
“Yet we should also add this point from Thomas: ‘Strictly speaking people are called schismatics who purposefully remove themselves without a suitable cause from the unity of the Church’ ([Summa theologiae] book 2, part 2).”
.
1500’s
Jerome Zanchi d. 1590
Confession of Christian Religion, Ch. 25, section 40, ‘Errors’, p. 240-1
“We therefore disallow all such things as are repugnant to this foresaid doctrine, confirmed by the scriptures, and chiefly these special points:
..
3. That the church does so consist of the elect and of true saints that in it should be contained no hypocrites, and that in the Scriptures they should never be comprehended under the Church’s name.
…
7. So to bind the church to certain places and persons, as to say there only with them is the church.
8. Not to acknowledge those for Christ’s churches, which, although they hold the grounds of faith, yet in ceremonies or in some part of doctrine do not altogether jump with us.
9. To make a separation from the churches upon any error or for the ill life of some men.
10. …and contrariwise, that those are not true churches which, although they keep fast the true doctrine, right sacraments and pure discipline, yet cannot show a continuance and succession of bishops never broken.”
.
1600’s
John Cameron
On Schism, p. 322 in The Character of a Separatist, or Sensuality the ground of Separation… (London, 1677), Picture & Character of a Separatist, pp. 23-25 Cameron (c. 1579 – 1625) was a Scottish theologian, professor and formalist.
“Schism is either a rash or an unjust separation upon the account of religion. It is with schism, as with error: a light error continued in with obstinacy becomes heresy. So there is a schism which may not be called unjust, but only rash, being grounded on a light cause; but if pertinacy be added, when the levity of the cause does appear, it becomes truly, and [Greek] an eminent schism. This rash schism may be known, either (à priori) from its previous cause, for no man being compelled to it (if we will speak the truth), it proceeds from self-love, therefore also hatred follows upon it.
Nor would any rash schism be made if we had charity, which is the most perfect bond and is not easily provoked, and thinks no evil. It is therefore a manifest note of hatred, which hatred may arise either from an offence really given or only taken; as when a man is grieved that another is preferred before him.
Again, a schism is made rashly either by the chief authors upon a light occasion, as if when an ulcer does appear upon any member, the surgeon should presently think of cutting off that member without applying other means, or expecting what nature may do.
But we may suppose that the schism be made upon the occasion of heresy, and then the separation may be thought to be just and not rash. To which I answer: That as judges, who in too great passion do condemn a malefactor that is really guilty, may be unjust, because they are acted rather by a certain ferity of mind than by the love of justice: so that separation, which proceeds from hatred, though it may have just causes, yet is unjust.
Again, the rashness of separation appears, à posteriori, when it is made on a light occasion, that is, where there is not a great and intolerable persecution, nor heresie, nor idolatry.
For, first, if the persecution be tolerable, that is, if it do not concern our lives or things necessary thereunto, we may not catch at an opportunity of departing: for as they that delight in a civil war, though they have the better cause, and just occasions, yet because they are glad of such occasions, they are murderers and enemies of their country.
2ly, separation is rash if the error in the Church from which he departs be neither heresie, nor superstition: for if the error be tolerable, as a superstitious rite may be, we may not separate; as a sick man is not to be forsaken unless his disease be deadly and contagious, and then not without grief.
Lastly, separation is rash when it is made because of corruption of manners, to which purpose our Savior said, ‘They sit in Moses’s chair, therefore do whatever they say unto you.’ [Mt. 23:1-3] This is the meaning of our Savior: Wherever the purity of doctrine does remain, there God has a Church, though overspread with many scandals.
Now an unjust Schism is that, which is made where there is no persecution or heresy, no error, superstition, or idolatry, none, or but few scandals; such was the schism of the Donatists. And this is the greatest degree of schism: and it is either negative, which is a bare departure only, without gathering of new congregations; or positive, when another Church is erected, which does separately use ecclesiastical laws, and the administration of the Word of God and sacraments, which the Scripture calls setting up of altar against altar [2 Kn. 16:10-16; Hos. 8:11; 10:1-2]; for, though a peaceable departure from the Church may be lawful and just, yet if new associations be entred into, it is unjust; for this cannot be done unless there be real hatred between brethren, contrary to Christianity; for the end of the commandment is charity. It must therefore be considered again and again whether the cause of this separation be of so great moment as that the glory of God and salvation depends upon it.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
‘Samuel Rutherford & Thomas Sydserff, Bishop of Galloway, ‘An Discussing of Some Arguments Against Canons & Ceremonies in God’s Worship’ 1636′ in Religious Controversy in Scotland, 1625-1639 ed. David G. Mullan in Scottish History Society, Fifth Series, vol 11 (Edinburgh: Scottish Historical Society, 1998), p. 97
“We are no Brownists, to think a church can be perfect in this life and must be deserted for faults, but it is sin to be coagents with the errors of a church. Howbeit we lie in one bed with our mother kirk and touch her whole skin, yet it is a sinful society to lay our skin to her boils and scabs.”
.
Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Edinburgh: Anderson & Ferrier, 1894), Letter 364, to brethren in Aberdeen, pp. 706-7
“If ye exclude all non-converts from the visible city of God (in which, daily, multitudes in Scotland, in all the four quarters of the land, above whatever our fathers saw, throng into Christ), shall they not be left to the lions and wild beasts of the forest, even to Jesuits, seminary-priests and other seducers? For the magistrate has no power to compel them to hear the Gospel, nor have ye any church-power over them, as ye teach; and they bring not love to the Gospel and to Christ out of the womb with them; and so they must be left to embrace what religion is most suitable to corrupt nature.
Nor can it be a way approven by the Lord in Scripture to excommunicate from the visible church (which is the office-house of the free grace of Christ, and His draw-net) all the multitudes of non-converts, baptized and visibly within the Covenant of Grace which are in Great Britain and all the reformed Churches; and so to shut the gates of the Lord’s gracious calling upon all these (because they are not, in your judgment, chosen to salvation), when once you are within [salvation or the Church] yourselves.
For how can the Lord call Egypt his people, and Assyria the work of his hands, and all the gentiles (who for numbers are as the flocks of Kedar, and the abundance of the sea) the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, if you number infants (as many do) and all such as your charity cannot judge converts (as others do) among heathens and pagans, who have not a visible claim and interest in Christ? The candlestick is not yours, nor the House; but Christ fixes and removes the one and builds or casts down the other, according to his sovereignty.
We in humility judge ourselves, though the chief of sinners, the sons of Zion and of the seed of Christ; if ye remove from us, and carry from hence the candlestick, let our Father be judge, and show us why the Lord has bidden you come out from among us. We look upon this visible church, though black and spotted, as the hospital and guest-house of sick, halt, maimed, and withered, over which Christ is Lord, Physician and Master: and we would wait upon those that are not yet in Christ, as our Lord waited upon us and you both.
We, therefore, your brethren, children of one Father, cannot but with tears and exceeding sorrow of heart earnestly entreat, beseech, and obtest you, by the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, by His sufferings and precious ransom which He paid for us both, by the consolations of His Spirit, by your appearance before the dreadful tribunal of our Lord Jesus, yea, and charge you before God and the same Lord Jesus, “who shall judge the quick and the dead, at His appearing, and His kingdom,” break not the spirits and hearts of those to whom ye are dear as their own soul. Forsake not the assemblies of the people of God; let us not divide.”
.
Scottish Aberdeen Doctors
Duplies of the Ministers & Professors of Aberdeen to Second Answers of some Reverend Brethren, concerning the Late [National] Covenant (Aberdeen: Raban, 1638), p. 11
“5. Whereas ye [David Dickson and Alexander Henderson] alledge, that if some members of this Kirk had not cared more kindly in this time of common danger than others have done, the whole body had been ere now dangerously, if not desperately, diseased.
We answer that we most heartily wish, any disease of this Church, to be timeously prevented and cured. But withal we wish this to bee done without a rupture, and such a dangerous division: chiefly seeing our Church is not infected with any such errors, nor is in such dangers as may give just occasion of so fearful a division: which in itself is a sore disease, and from which in holy Scripture we are often and very earnestly dehorted.
Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Novatus, recorded by Eusebius, Histories, bk. 6, ch. 45, worthily says:
‘You ought rather to have suffered anything whatsoever for avoiding of cutting asunder the Kirk of God: and martyrdom for keeping the Kirk from schism is no less glorious than which is suffered for not committing idolatry. And in my opinion also it is greater: for in suffering martyrdom for not committing idolatry, a man suffers for one, even for his own soul; but here a man suffers martyrdom for the whole Kirk.’”
.
George Gillespie 1646
Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, ‘To the Reader’, p. xix
“When I speak of this divine ordinance of church government, my meaning is not to allow, much less to animate any in the too severe and over-strict exercise of ecclesiastical discipline and censures. It was observed by Jerome (Ad Marcellum), as one of the errors of the Montanists: Illi ad omne pene delictum ecclesiae obserant fores, They shut the church door (that is, they excommunicate and shut out of the church) almost at every offence.
I confess the greater part are more apt to fail in the defect than in the excess, and are like to come too short rather than to go too far. Yet a failing there may be, and has been, both ways… My purpose and endeavor shall be… to own the thing, to disown the abuses of the thing, to point out the path of Christ’s ordinance without allowing either rigour against such as ought to be tenderly dealt with, or too much lenity towards such as must be saved with fear, and pulled out of the fire, or at all any aberration to the right or left hand.”
.
Treatise of Miscellany Questions, ch. 10, ‘Of New Lights’, Seventhly
“Seventhly, Beware of separating new lights. To separate from, or gather new churches out of the true reformed or reforming churches, has not the least warrant from the Word of God. When we see this or that amiss in a church, we are bidden to exhort one another, and provoke one another to good, but not to separate, Heb. 10:24-25.
Zwinglius conferred amicably with the Anabaptists in Zurich, as with dissenting brethren, and no course was taken to suppress or restrain them by the secular power, till they grew to gather churches out of the true reformed churches; but when it came to that, they could not be suffered or forborne, it was thought necessary to retrain them.”
.
Jeremiah Burroughs
Irenicum, c. 23. p. 162, 163 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 22
“Where these causes are not, [viz. the being constrained to profess, believe or practice contrary to the Rule of Faith, or being deprived of means altogether necessary, or most expedient to salvation] but men may communicate without sin, professing the truth, and enjoy all ordinances as the freemen of Christ: Men must not separate from a Church, though there be corruption in it, to gather into a new Church, which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable.”
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2
“7. That doctrine that cries up purity to the ruin of unity is contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel. For the Gospel calls for unity as well as purity, 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1-2; Eph. 4:3-6. And Christ prayed for the unity of his Church, as well as the holiness, Jn. 17:21-22, and it is prophesied of the times of the Gospel that in those days God will give his people one heart and one way, and to serve Him with one consent, Jer. 32:29; Zeph. 3:9.
This rule will teach you what to judge of the congregational-way: for certainly that government that carries in the front of it a toleration of different religions and is not sufficient to keep the body of Christ in unity and purity is not the government of Christ.”
.
“We will therefore conclude with that description that Doctor [William] Ames gives of the sinfulness and mischievousness of schism, bk. 5, ch. 12. Schism, properly so called, is a most grievous sin:
1. Because it is against charity towards our neighbor, etc.
2. Because it is against the edification of him who makes the separation, in that he deprives himself communion in spiritual good.
3. Because it is against the honor of Christ, in that, as much as in it lies, it takes away the unity of his mystical body.
4. It makes way unto heresy and separation from Christ.
And therefore it is a sin by all good men to be abhorred.”
.
Henry Jeanes
The Want of Church-Government… (London, 1650), p. 41
“…a negative separation, that is, a non-communion with the Church in a lawful and commanded worship is unlawful…
For the antecedent [above] I shall refer you to all that write against the Separation, who generally distinguish separation into Negative and Positive; Negative, is a non-communion in ordinances. Positive, when we gather and grow into another body, and they conclude them both to be unlawful.”
.
James Sharp
A True Representation of the Rise, Progress & State of the Present Divisions of the Church of Scotland (London, 1657), p. 37
“…they will not concur in lawful duties, on lawful causes, because these with whom they join will not come up to their judgement in all other things.”
.
James Durham
The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or a Treatise concerning Scandal… (Edinburgh, 1659)
pt. 2, ch. 13, pp. 145-46
“This truth is fully made out by those three worthy and pious divines of New England, [John] Cotton, [Thomas] Hooker and [John] Norton: The last whereof, by many reasons evinces this in his answer to Apollonius’s last question, pp. 162-163, and does from the Church of Corinth in particular confirm this:
There (says he) was impurity or corruption in worship, for women taught in the Church; There was corrupt doctrine, many denied the Resurrection; in manners, she was most corrupt, there being so many fornications, sects, palpable love of the world, etc. Yet (says he) the apostle did not command those that were worthily prepared to abstain from the Supper, but, rectifying abuses, he did command every one to try himself, and so to eat, etc.
And many other things hath he excellently to this purpose, and lays this for a ground, that per alios indigne accedentes non polluitur communio, licet minuitur consolatio, that is, ‘the communion in worship is not polluted, though the consolation be diminished by such joint worshippers.’”
.
pt. 4, ch. 7, ‘General Grounds leading to Unity’, pp. 320-24
“If it be asked then, With what kind of defects or discontents may a union be made up? or, what rules may be walked by therein? For answer, we offer these considerations or rules:
1. Whatever doesn’t warrant an initial separation doesn’t warrant a continued separation…
2. Whatever defects do not make union with a church and her ordinances sinful do not warrant separation…
3. Union with a church is lawful for those (i) whose callings lead them to a particular church and (ii) they can fulfill the duty of their callings without impediment, even if others fail to fulfill their duty…
4. Union must be maintained even if principles generally acknowledged in a church are not applied in practice…
5. Union must be maintained when the inconveniences following from separation are more harmful to the church than the inconveniences following union, provided that nothing makes union with a church and her ordinances sinful…
6. Union must be maintained when union with a church and her ordinances doesn’t require (i) personal sin or (ii) complicity in others’ sin.”
.
I.C.M.A.
A Guide to the True Religion: or a Discourse Directing to make a wise Choice of that Religion Men venture their Salvation upon… (Edinburgh: Anderson, 1669), pp. 87-88
“Take heed of pretending to greater purity and strictness about Church communion and administrations than the Word of God commends, or the examples of Christ and the apostles and the primitive Church do commend; nor be so extremely rigid as not to bear with things that they have tolerated.
It is an observable rule laid down by wise and eminent divines that too much strictness and severity often does injury the Church more than profit it; it’s the way to overturn churches, not to reform them; especially this severity is unbecoming private Christians, who having no authority, yet complain such persons and such things are defilements: they must separate from them, they must not touch the unclean thing: such should take heed that they be not ‘righteous over-much,’ and not dare to be wise above what is written, lest their too much affected purity and misguided zeal hurt more the Church of Christ, and their own souls than the corruptions they so much complain of.
Calvin adv. Anab., Art. 2. ‘Cum sub specie studii perfectionis imperfectionem nulam tollerare possumus; tune Diabolum nos tumefacere superbia, et hypocrisi seducere moneamur.'”
.
John Bairdie
Balm from Gilead, or the Differences about the Indulgence Stated & Impleaded… (London, 1681)
pp. 9–10
“Is not schism a breach of your covenant, as well as prelacy?… And will ye cry out of others for breach of covenant and yet violate the same so grossly yourselves?”
.
p. 166
“Is it not preposterous to be hot against prelacy and Erastianism (sad ills indeed!) and yet friendly enough toward schism, error and some other things repugnant to the Word of God and your covenants as well as these? Let your zeal be universal and impartial against all evil, hating every false way; and while ye shun Scylla, dash not upon Charybdis.”
.
John Corbet
An Account given of the Principles & Practices of Several Nonconformists… (London: Parkhurst, 1682), p. 8
“Moreover we hold not ourselves obliged to forsake a true Church as no Church for the corruptions and disorders found therein, or to separate from its worship for the tolerable faults thereof, while our personal profession of some error, or practice of some evil is not required as the terms of our communion.”
.
Richard Baxter
Reformed Pastor, 3.4
.
The True Catholic, & Catholic Church Described… (London: A.M., 1660), pp. 205-6
“And for the command, ‘Come out from among them and be ye separate,’ it’s pity that any Christian should need to be told that it speaks only to the Church to come out of the heathen, infidel world (such as are Jews and Mohammedans, and heathens); but there is never a word in all the Bible that bids you ‘Come out of the Church and be ye separate!’
Wonderful! that God should be so abused by misunderstanding Christians! Because He commands men to come out of the infidel world into the Church, they plead it as if He commanded them to come out of the Church into a separated sect. The Church is the House of Christ: Forsake it not, while he stays in it: Forsake it not, for He has promised never to forsake it. Particular Churches indeed he may cast off, but never the universal: Dwell therefore where He dwells.”
.
A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw (London: Simmons, 1671), sect. 45, p. 116
“Do you, or can you believe and make all your followers believe that the synagogue-worship and the Temple-worship were kept so pure by the priests, Levites and pharisees in Christ’s days as that there was nothing of human tradition obtruded? Or nothing but what God commanded? Can you believe this?
Or can you believe that Christ was not usually or often present there? See Luke 4:16, ‘At Nazareth where he had been brought up, as his custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day’—And of Paul its said, Acts 17:2, ‘As his manner was, he went in to them, and three Sabbath days reasoned’—Or do you believe that Christ was a sinner? and that he contradicted his own sovereignty? What! and yet be a perfect Saviour?”
.
Christian Directory in Practical Works, vol. 1
p. 177
“1. The name and profession of a Christian and a Protestant, with going to church, and a heartless lip-service or saying their prayers, is the cloak of all ungodly Protestants.
2. Others, discerning the thinness of this cloak, do think to make themselves a better: and they take up the strictest opinions in religion, and own those which they account the strictest party, and own that which they esteem the purest and most spiritual worship: the cloak of these men is their opinions, party, and way of worship, while their carnal lives detect their hypocrisy.”
.
p. 187
“You will have many factious zealots to please, who being strangers to the love of holiness, Christianity, and unity, are ruled by the interest of an opinion or sect: and these will never be pleased by you, unless you will be one of their side or party, and conform yourself to their opinions.
If you be not against them, but set yourselves to reconcile and end the differences in the church, they will hate you as not promoting their opinions, but weakening them by some abhorred syncretisms.
As in civil, so in ecclesiastical wars, the firebrands cannot endure the peaceable: if you will be neuters, you shall be used as enemies. If you be never so much for Christ, and holiness, and common truth, all is nothing, unless you be also for them, and their conceits.”
Schism Detected in both Extremes, or Two Sorts of Sinful Separation… (London: 1684)
pt. 1, ch. 4, p. 33
“Local separation without mental can make no culpable schism; for Nil nisi Voluntarium est morale [‘nothing without the will is moral’]; if a man be imprisoned or be sick and cannot come to the church, it is innocent separation; I have been at no church this half year, much against my will; O that God would heal me of this separation!”
.
p. 10
“As to the argument of scandal: It is of dreadful weight to deter a tender conscience, as from conforming to sin, so from his groundless separation, and war against unity and love.”
.
p. 15
“…the Romans were guilty of differences in God’s service and despising and judging each other for them; The Corinthians were carnal in making parties and divisions; they defrauded each other and went to law before heathens. They had fornicators, Judaizing envious slanderers of Paul, heretical deniers of the Resurrection, such as eat in idols’ temples, or of their sacrifices: were drunk at, or before the sacrament. The Galatians are yet sharplier charged: Almost all the seven Churches, Rev. 2 and 3, had Nicolatians, or Jezabel’s doctrine, which God hated: and no Christian is called to separate from the communion of any one of all these; but commanded to amend, and live in unity, without divison.”
.
p. 18
“But if Peter withdraw or separate from the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jewish Christians, and Barnabas be led away with the dissimulation, Paul must oppose it to their faces: And I that have seen what the Spirit of division has done, and read that God never blessed unnecessary separation, will imitate Paul. And if this world be uncurable, the Lord prepare me for that world where love and unity have no enemies.”
.
Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024),
p. 60
“But it is proud ignorance and lack of Christian love causing excommunicating, persecuting, Separation or schism in some, and withdrawing censorious Separation in others, who (neither party) understand the truth nor ever loved their neighbors as themselves, nor learned to do as they would be done by.”
.
pp. 77-78
“There is so great a difference of men and cases that it’s gross sottishness to think that their duties and sins are the same in mutable circumstances:
It’s a sin to preach or pray when we should be quenching a fire, saving men’s lives. Christians, as well as Pharisees, are yet to learn what that means, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice, and therefore accuse the guiltless.” [Mt. 12:7]
Some men have no possibility of any other church-worship but in the parish-churches. Some have no other possibility but what is worse. Some may have abler teachers, but at the cost of imprisonment and ruin. It is not lawful to lie in prison merely for refusing to hear a weak nonconformist when you might hear an abler: and so it is in the case of conformists, else all were bound to a few men.
Some have liberty to hear fitter men, or at the least, more agreeable to them, without greater hurt than good (as the Dutch and French here have). Some are commanded by husbands, parents and masters to one church, and some to another. Some have more able and godly ministers in the parish-churches, and some have such as I would never own or encourage in the ministry by seeming to own them.
Some can remove their dwelling and some cannot. Some had liberty the last year that cannot have it this year without more hurt than their benefit will compensate.
In these cases where God has not at all tied us to a [Service-]book, or no book, to this church or to that, he that can truly tell which way he shall do and get most good or hurt, may by that better know his duty than by these arguments or men’s censures.”
.
Church Concord, containing I. a Dissuasive from Unnecessary Division & Separation, & the Real Concord of the Moderate Independents with the Presbyterians… (London: Parkhurst, 1691), pt. 2, Question 2, p. 65
“13. If a pastor preach some unsound doctrines or faultily perform the public worship, or neglect just discipline and receive the unworthy to the communion of the church, or reject the worthy, the presence of the innocent members (who make not the fault their own by consent, or by neglecting their duties to reform it), makes none of this to be their sin, nor is to be taken for a sign of their consent: Nor will the presence of the unworthy deprive the godly of the blessing or comfort of God’s ordinance: Nor are they bound to separate from that church because of these corruptions, unless they are so great as to unchurch that church or make their worship and communion such as God Himself rejects and will not accept: or unless by imposing sin upon them, or some other way, the church expel them, or they have accidentally some other reason to remove.”
.
Thomas Goodwin
Works, 12 vols. (d. 1680; Edinburgh: Nichol, 1861), vol. 1, Exposition of Eph. 1 (1681), sermon 36, on 1:22-23, p. 559
“And for my part this I say, and I say it with much integrity, I never yet took up religion by parties, in the lump; I have found by trial of things, that there is some truth on all sides. I have found holiness where you would little think it, and so likewise truth;
and I have learned this principle, which I hope I shall never lay down till I am swallowed up of immortality; and that is that which I said before: To acknowledge every good thing, and hold communion with it, in men, in churches, or whatsoever else. I learn this from Paul; I learn this from Jesus Christ Himself: He fills all in all; He is in the hearts of his people, and fills them in his ordinances to this day; and where Jesus Christ fills, why should we deny an acknowledgment and a right hand of fellowship and communion.
My brethren, this rule that I have now mentioned (which I profess I have lived by, and shall do while I live), I know I shall never please men in it. Why? it is plain, For this is the nature and condition of all mankind; if a man dissents from others in one thing, he loses them in all the rest; and therefore if a man do take what is good of all sides, he is apt to lose them all, but he pleases Christ by it, and so will I for this particular.”
.
John Bairdie
Balm from Gilead, or the Differences about the Indulgence Stated & Impleaded in a Sober & Serious Letter to Ministers & Christians in Scotland (1674; London: Cockerill, 1681), pp. 181-82
“(6) Take heed of pretending to greater purity and strictness about Church-communion than the Word of God commends or the examples of Christ, of the apostles and the primitive Church commends. Nor be so extremely rigid as not to bear with things they have tolerated. Be not over-righteous, lest by over-straining ye both sin and do harm; yea, and plainly bewray it to be faction or humor, not conscience, which acts you. Calvin contra the Anabaptists, Act. 2, says, Cum sub specie studii perfectionis imperfectionem nullam tolerare possumus, tunc diabolum nos tume facere superbia, et hypocrisi se ducere, moneamur. Suppose your ministers were guilty (as they are not) of most of [the] things ye lay to their charge; Yet what an unparalleld, unheard of, unexamplified Separation is yours from them as to any warrantable precedent?
(7) Make nothing necessary to the unity of the Church, or to the communion of pastors and people but what God has made necessary in his Word, or directed you to make. Put not every new opinion into your creed, nor every new course be added to the Decalogue, as if ye were to impose them upon or require them of others as such substantial articles of Faith or necessary duties that ye must renounce all religious fellowship with them who are not of that way, Acts 15:10. There is not a greater divider or separater than this tantizing or screwing up of debatable points wherein God has left us so much latitude, as not to make either the one or the other part of the controversy a necessary condition of Church-communion. O take no burden of strictness on you that is not of his imposing, Rev. 2:24-25.”
.
William Vilant
A Review & Examination of a Book bearing the Title of The History of the Indulgence… (London: Cockerill, 1681), Preface, p. 4
“It has been the sad observation of diverse, that every new trial has been the occasion of a new difference, if not division. The Lord partly, in his holy displeasure, withdrawing light and chastising his people for their sins, and partly trying and exercising of them in that great duty of mutual forbearance, so little made conscience of; and partly discovering infirmities, much dross in his own, by the contests so carnally managed.”
.
Dr. Brian
Dwelling with God, p. 294 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, pp. 25-26
“There were many great corruptions in the Church of the Jews in Christ’s time, the priests and teachers were ignorant and wicked, and had a corrupt and unlawful entrance into their calling; and the people were like to the priests, generally notoriously and obstinately ungodly; and the worship used in that Church was woefully corrupt; many superstitious ceremonies, the observation whereof were more strictly urged than the commandments and ordinances of God; the Temple made a den of thieves, the discipline and censures shamefully abused, the doctrine was corrupt in many points;
Yet the Word tells you Christ (whose example it binds you to follow, and you profess your selves followers of Him in all imitable things) made no separation from this Church, professed Himself a member of it, was by circumcision incorporated a member, received baptism in a congregation of that people, was a hearer of their common service and their teachers, allowing and commanding his disciples to hear them, communicated in the Passover with the people and the priests: No more did his apostles make separation from this Church after his ascension, till their day had its period, etc. By their example it appears that till God has forsaken a Church, no man may forsake it, etc.
So that we conclude from hence with Mr. [Arthur] Hildersham: Those assemblies that enjoy the Word and doctrine of salvation, though they have many corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknowledged as true Churches of God, and such as none of the faithful may make separation from. We shall need no further proof of this doctrine than the example of our Savior Himself, etc.”
.
Richard Vines
On the Sacrament, p. 239 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 21
“The Church may be corrupted many ways, in doctrine, ordinances, worship, etc. And there are degrees of this corruption; the doctrine in some remote points, the worship in some rituals of man’s invention or custom. How many Churches do we find thus corrupted, and yet no separation of Christ from the Jewish Church, nor any commandment to the godly of Corinth, etc. to separate.
I must in such a case avoid the corruption, hold the communion—But if corruptions invade the fundamentals, the foundation of doctrine is destroyed, the worship is become idolatrous; and what is above all, if the Church impose such laws of her communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful, in that case, ‘Come out of Babylon.’ The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome.”
.
On Sacrament, p. 246 & p. 31 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 55
“It’s no duty [to separate from an impure church], as he elsewhere says, because there is no command; it’s no duty, and therefore we read not this word, ‘come forth’, in any of the epistles written to the seven Churches [in Rev. 2-3], against which Christ says He has such and such things.
They that lived in the impurer are not called forth into the purer, but there are promises made to them that keep themselves pure, and duties enjoined them toward the impurer part. For we may not make every disease the plague. Shall the sons of God, the angels, forsake the Lord’s Presence because Satan came also amongst them?”
.
William Jenkins
Commentary on Jude, verse 19 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 24
“Must not he who will forbear communion with a Church till it be altogether freed from mixtures, tarry till the day of Judgment, till when we have no promise that Christ will gather out of his Church whatsoever does offend? This was it that amongst other reasons conquered the prejudices of that good man Mr. J. Allen and kept him from separation, of which we have this account.
He knew of how great moment it was that the public worship of God should be maintained, and that its assemblies should not be relinquished, though some of its administrations did not clearly approve themselves unto him; because upon the account of some imperfections and pollutions in them, supposed, or real, to withdraw communion, is evidently to suppose ourselves joined before our time to the heavenly Assembly, or to have found such an one upon earth exempt from all mixtures and imperfections of worshippers and worship.”
.
London Ministers
A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’
pp. 12-13
“What opinion the sober and eminent non-conformists have of communion with the Church of England. And they generally hold:
1. That they are not totally to separate from it; this follows from the former, and must be own’d by all them that hold she is a true Church: for to own it to be such, and yet to separate totally from it, would be to own and disown it at the same time: So say the members of the Assembly of Divines, ‘Thus to depart from true Churches, is not to hold communion with them as such, but rather by departing to declare them not to be such.’ (Papers for Accommodation, p. 47) And says Mr. [Richard] Baxter, ‘Nothing will warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church (which yet is the case in total Separation) but the want of something essential to a Church: But if the Church have all things essential to it, it is a true Church, and not to be separated from.’ (Reasons for the Christian Religion, p. 464)…
Such a Separation would (as has been said) unchurch it. This would be to deny Christ holds communion with it, or to deny communion with a Church with which Christ holds communion, contrary to a principle that is, I think, universally maintained (Jenkin on Jude, v. 19; Allen, Vindiciae Pietatis, 2nd pt., p. 123; Vindication of Presbyterian Government, p. 130; Cotton on John, p. 156).
‘The error of these men,’ says Mr. Brightman (On Revelation, ch. 3 [p. 131]) ‘is full of evil, who do in such a manner make a departure from this Church (by total Separation) as if Christ were quite banished from hence, and that there could be no hope of salvation to those that abide there. Let these men consider that Christ is here feasting with his members; will they be ashamed to sit at meat there, where Christ is not ashamed to sit? Further, this would be a notorious schism;’
… This therefore is their avowed principle, that total Separation from the Church is unlawful: And this the old non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists (Ames’s Puritanismus Angl.; Parker, On the Cross, pt. 2, ch. 91, §21; Baxter, Defence, p. 55); and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part (Apologetical Narration, p. 6):
‘We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof, etc. that we both did, and would hold communion with them as the Churches of Christ.’”
.
p. 28
“‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,’ says our Savior; He advises not his disciples to leave their assemblies, but to beware that they take no leaven of them; shewing thereby, that a good Man that stands upon his gaurd may be where leaven is and yet not be leavened…
And why may not the joint prayers of the Church and the examples of pious and devout men in the communion be as sovereign an antidote against the infection, as the bare company of wicked men is of power to convey it? Why should not the holy ordinances of God and the presence of holy men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctify the whole body, as the impurities of the bad are to stain and pollute it; especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous, but the prayers of the righteous have obtained pardon for the wicked.”
.
p. 32
“They [older non-conformists] argue that there is no necessity for [total] Separation for the sake of such corruptions, because a person may communicate in the worship without partaking in those corruptions…
1. This separation of the good from the bad in divine worship they grant possible. So Mr. [John] Ball:
‘If some things human be mixed with divine, a sound Christian must separate the one from the other, and not cast away what is of God as a nullity, fruitless, unprofitable, defiled, because somewhat of men is annexed unto them. In the body we can distinguish betwixt the substance and the sickness which cleaves unto it; betwixt the substance of a part or member, and some bunch or swelling, which is a deformity, but destroys not the nature of that part or member, etc.’ (Trial of the Grounds, etc., p. 308)
…
2. They grant, that what is faulty and a sin in worship, is no sin to us when we do not consent to it. So Mr. [John] Corbet:
‘My partaking in any divine worship, which is holy and good for the matter and allowable or passable in the mode for the main, does not involve me in the blame of some sinful defects therein, to which I consent not and which I cannot redress.’ (Non-Conformists Plea, etc., p. 6)
So another, in his Farewell Sermon:
‘While all necessary fundamental Truth is publicly professed and maintained in a Church, is taught and held forth in public assemblies, and the corruptions there (though great, yet) are not such as make the worship cease to be God’s worship, nor of necessity to be swallowed down if one would communicate in that worship, while any Christian (that is watchful over his own heart and carriage, as all ought ever to be) may partake in the one, without being active in, or approving the other; there God is yet present, there he may be spiritually worshipped, served acceptably, and really enjoyed.’ (England‘s Remembrancer, sermon 4, p. 94)”
.
p. 59
“…Mr. Baxter’s answer is sufficient:
‘If you mark all the texts in the Gospel, you shall find that all the separation which is commanded in such cases (besides our separation from the infidels and idolatrous world, or antichristian and heretical confederacies, and no-churches) is but one of these two sorts:
1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the power of the keys, or
2. That private men avoid all private familiarity with them;
But that the private members should separate from the Church, because such persons are not cast out of it; show me one text to prove it if you can?’
This, says Mr. [Richard] Vines, has not a syllable of Scripture to allow or countenance it. (On the Sacrament, p. 246; Tombes, Theodulia, p. 128)”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes (P&R), vol. 3, 18th Topic, ‘The Church’, 32nd Question, ‘Ecclesiastical Discipline and Excommunication’, section IV, p. 294
“Here it is particularly to be observed that this [Church] discipline exercises such a degree of severity as is always connected with a spirit of kindness… it can easily be judged thence how far to proceed and where severity ought to cease… otherwise rigor exceeds the proper bound.
Hence the immoderate austerity of the ancients cannot be approved, which was both contrary to the prescription of God and was exposed to great dangers… Therefore that spiritual sword is not to be unsheathed for a trivial cause (as is the case everywhere among the Anabaptists), but all things are to be first tried and only by degrees ought we to resort to extreme measures…”
.
Gilbert Rule
The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), sect. 10
p. 246
“Schism is a breach of unity; and therefore, there can be no schism where there ought to be no unity; yea, where there need be no unity, or where there can be no unity. Wherefore that we may understand what schism is, it is needful to consider what unity should, and must be among Churches, and among Christians. There are several sorts of unity, that we cannot have with all Churches, as local communion: some that we need not have, as identity of rites: some that we ought not to have with some Churches; as communion in false doctrine, or impure worship.”
.
pp. 255-56
“…the Learned Bishop of Worcester, in his Irenic. p. 109… he tells us, that where soundness of doctrine is retained, but some corruptions in practice are tolerated, but not imposed, separation is unlawful on that account… Against which I have nothing to object…”
.
1700’s
Wilhelmus A’Brakel 1700
The Christian’s Reasonable Service Buy vol. 2, ch. 25, ‘The Duty to Join the Church and to Remain with Her’
pp. 61-62
“...it is a dreadful sin to depart from the church for the purpose of establishing one which is better, for the church is one, being the body of Christ. To separate ourselves from the church is to separate from the people of Christ and thus from His body, thereby withdrawing from the confession of Christ and departing from the fellowship of the saints. If we indeed deem the church to be what she really is, we shall then cause schism in the body of Christ, grieve the godly, offend others, give cause for the blaspheming of God‟s Name, and cause the common church member to err. By maintaining that the church is no church, we thereby deny the church of Christ, and therefore are also guilty of the sins just mentioned. We thereby displease God, who will not leave this unavenged, regardless of how much we please and flatter ourselves. Such activity the apostle opposes when he refers to such individuals as being carnal in 1 Cor 3:1, 3. He warns against this when he writes, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you” (1 Cor 1:10); “I hear that there be divisions among you” (1 Cor 11:18).”
[To see more of what A’Brakel has to say and the context that he was speaking to, see Andrew Myers’ article, ‘The Spirit of Labadism’.]
.
p. 68
“God generally imposes secret judgments upon those who absent themselves [from the church]. They become proud, opinionated, and despise the judgment of godly persons endowed with wisdom. They hold the congregation of God in contempt. They haughtily speak of great things, and come in a condition where they deem themselves beyond instruction, manifesting a pride against that which David prayed in Ps 19:13.
God will afflict such with a special cross which they will have to endure for the remainder of their lives. He pours contempt upon them, causes their physical condition to deteriorate, and permits them to fall into sin. He sends them a powerful delusion that they would believe a lie (2 Thess 2:9-11), since they did not embrace the truth in love, and espoused a love for error. Their departure is rarely limited to one error, and it generally goes from bad to worse.“
.
Francis Tallents
A Short History of Schism: for the Promoting of Christian Moderation & the Communion of Saints (London: Parkhurst, 1705), pp. 9-10
“But some schisms are of a lower nature, and consistent with true faith and love, and the grace of God in men. Such as proceed from lesser errors, mistaken zeal, weakness of grace, and remainders of corruption in such as have true faith in Christ, and love to all saints, and to all men: For alas, We know but in part [1 Cor. 13], and love but in part.
Yet even these schisms are sins against God, hurtful to the Church, and provoke the Lord to correct people that are guilty of ’em more or less many ways; sometimes in their souls, by withdrawing his gracious presence, and writing bitter things against them; oft in their bodies and outward concerns, and sometimes even by shattering and destroying Churches. Therefore I am far from writing this to flatter any in their schism, or to encourage any wantonly, proudly, or carelessly to run into it, or continue in it, but carefully to avoid it; for we are to watch against all sin if we will be saved.”
.
Thomas Boston
The Evil, Nature and Danger of Schism, a Sermon (1708)
“The first prejudice then is, That those who dissent and separate from us are the strictest party. In answer to this…
As for strictness of opinions, as to government and church communion, if we measure strictness according to the dictates of men’s own spirits, we will yield to them for strictness; and so would our Lord to the Pharisees, and the apostles to the false teachers. But if we measure strictness according to the Word of God, we deny they are strictest, but they are indeed widest from the rule. I will follow Christ to the synagogue of the Jews (I hope some of you at least may understand what I say [who had corruptions in their worship and government]) and in so doing I will be more strict than those that scruple to follow Christ’s example, for fear they be involved in the guilt of the corruptions among them; for the nearer I follow Christ, the more strict I am, if strictness be measured according to the Word of God…”
.
1900’s
James Cooper
Confessions of Faith & Formulas of Subscription in the Reformed Churches of Great Britain & Ireland, especially in the Church of Scotland (Glasgow: MacLehose & Sons, 1907), p. 2
“The Pope may be no politician, but his contention is that of a faithful Christian minister when he declares that the Church cannot have her constitution altered according to the whim of this government or that, and pronounces schism an evil more to be dreaded and avoided than any spoliation of earthly goods, or even expulsion from parsonage and church.”
.
2000’s
Travis Fentiman
“Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
1. “Background”, “Perspective”, pp. 13-14
“The question of separation is often one of perspective. It is not hard to list out all the defects and deficiencies of a Church from the Word, as Separatists are keen on doing. Yet doing so takes one’s eyes off the positive Christian principles and virtues the Church yet has in it, which one would find more profit in making into a list. Both lists, with opposite parties’ eyes on either, could be equally true, yet positive Christian principles are more foundational and binding grounds for union by the Word than superadded defects and errors.
Likewise, a plethora of seemingly conclusive criticisms may be heaped up against a controversial practice without persons ever knowing, or caring to find out, the original or best reasons for it, which, when known, may not only be tolerable, but one may find the practice able to be accommodated and performed under those reasons (or others) without hindering unity.
Separation presupposes and is founded on unity. Unity, of its nature, is not built on separation or dependent on it. The errors and deficiencies one materially tolerates and accommodates for the time and circumstances under necessity, for the higher good in love, overlooking a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8), without approving them, versus what one believes and the standard one seeks to reform unto, namely the spotless Word of God, are two different things which may consist with each other.
Answer this question: Over matters less than tending to overturn fundamentals or the power of godliness, between (1) those who condemn, won’t materially conform for nearly anything and separate out of principle upon perceived necessity to set up their own church, outward government, worship and ministry as perfect as they can, versus (2) those who over the long-haul sacrificially bear under what they are able to defer to, act as salt, strengthen and build up Christ’s people in the main things and seek to reform Christ’s Body to the Word, while maintaining her unity:
Who is most faithful to the most important, fundamental and weightiest, and hence binding, Christian principles, exercising the greater love to God and man (Mt. 22:36–39)? If denominationalism, or sectarianism, is ever to be healed, as Jesus prays (Mt. 6:10; Jn. 17:20–23), it must be along the latter lines; our ministers’ book contains essential principles towards that end.”
.
“Close”, pp. 186-87
“(2) Secondly, while not every kind and degree of separation is a culpable schism (Mt. 12:14–15; 15:2; 16:6; Lk. 13:31; Rom. 16:17–18), as our authors below note, yet when the separations are voluntary, self-imposed and not necessary, such as in much of our evangelical denominationalism, these culpable schisms of Christ’s body, Paul says, reveal a deficit of a virtue we are lacking: “there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” [1 Cor. 12:25]
We have to see that we are guilty of not having the same care for other Christians, and seek to live up to this (by the Spirit and power that rose Christ from the dead, Rom. 8:11), before anything will change. There must not only be a concord of doctrine, but there ought to be a concord and harmony of affections, actions and ends as well:
“walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Eph. 4:1-6)”
.
Latin
Articles
1600’s
Cameron, John – ‘Of Schism’ in Ta Sozomena sive opera partim ab auctore ipso edita, partim post ejus obitum vulgata… (Frankfurt: Schleichius, 1642), pp. 322-29
Voet, Gisbert
Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 4 Abbr.
1. Of Schism & Schismatics, by whatever way they
. Illegitimately Secede
In General
Of the Errors & Schism of the Neo-Lutherans
. On Some Intestine Contentions
Of the English Separatists, commonly called
. Brownists or Barrowists
Of the Errors & Schism of the Neo-Lutherans
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663)
vol. 3, pt. 2, bk. 1, Of the People of the Church, Tract 1
4. On a Hypothetical Question, First: Do the Remonstrants [Arminians] of Good Order have Power to Remove Themselves and Their Own from the Inspection, Oversight and Ecclesiastical Judgment? and to Strive for Every Kind of Exemption from the Magistrate, to Use them for their Profit? 55
vol. 4, pt. 3, bk. 3, Of the Government of the Church with Respect to a State of Turbulence, Tract 3, Of Union and Joining With [Syncretismo] Separated Churches, Section 1
1. Of Illicit Ecclesiastical Separations and Secessions 488
2. Arguments of the Opposite Sentiment are Solved. Arguments of the Donatists and those who Follow the Donatists[?] are now Examined. 494
3. Are the Faithful to Separate from their Church, etc.? 502
4. The Cause is Explicated why the Work of Paul in the Diatribe is Examined, and Reasons are Repeated 513
5. Reasons and Exceptions Opposite to my Considerations about the Work of Paul and Jerome are Refuted 529
6. The Succeeding Calumnies about my Considerations Regarding the Work of Paul, Exhibited Above in Ch. 3, are Heavily [Gravantur] Refuted 543
7. Exceptions to our Arguments in the Tryings of Those Separatists are Refuted 548
8. Particular Objections and Exceptions Against my Considerations above About the Work of Paul and Jerome are Refuted 560
9. Some Extravagant and Personal Calumnies of the New Apologist are Pressed Hard 578
Forbes, John – bk. 14, ‘Of the Unity & Schism of the Church’ ToC in Historical & Theological Instructions on Christian Doctrine… (Amsterdam, 1645), pp. 708-33 This volume was commended by Polyander, Trigland, Spanheim, Voet, Maets, Hoornbeeck, Cloppenburg, Coccejus and Maresius, as well as Gerhard Vossi, an Arminian.
Forbes (1593-1648) was one of the Aberdeen doctors. This volume gained him the reputation of being one of the greatest theologians of the reformed Church. The covenanters ‘acknowledged his orthodoxy and high Christian character’ (DNB).
.
Book
Brown of Wamphray, John
‘Preface to the Reader’ in Two Books… in the Second, the Libertine-Erastian Judgment of Lambert Velthusius in his book in the [Dutch] vernacular, on Idolatry & Superstition, newly set forth, is detected and confuted; also the orthodox truth is vindicated from the exceptions of adversaries, whether Libertines, Erastians or others and is illustrated and confirmed by 32 Assertions opposite the Velthusian judgment, to which is prefixed a small preface, in which some things are briefly and summarily propounded on the Nature of the Visible & Invisible Church, and so of the Communion of the Church, tearing down the illegitimate Separation already begun in Belgium in 2 vols. (Amseterdam, 1670), vol. 1 This volume only contains the work on the interpretation of the Scriptures.
This preface, translated into English by Grange Press (2024), briefly lists out and illustrates Brown’s 32 assertions on the Church and Church government that are more extensively propounded and defended in the volume below.
Brown was a Scottish covenanting minister who abode for many years in the Netherlands. Velthuysen (1623-1685) was generally reformed.
“Brown of Wamphray, while in exile in Holland, published, in 1670, an important and valuable work on this subject, entitled Libertino-Erastianae… which is well worthy of perusal.” – Cunningham, HT 2.582
The general outline of this volume follows the 32 assertions Brown laid out in the preface to the first volume above.
.
Bibliographies
Quotes
Order of
Pagitt
Baxter
London Ministers
.
1600’s
Ephraim Pagitt
Heresiography, or a Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times (London: Wilson, 1645), ‘Of the Brownists’, 24. ‘How these Sectaries have been punished’, pp. 73-74
“They that would know more of these sectaries [Brownists], let them read these books following:
First, a book called, A Discovery of Brownism, or a briefe Declaration of the errors and 〈◊〉 dayly practised and increased among the English company of the Separation, remaining at this present at Amsterdam in Holland, by Mr. White.
A book called, The Raising of the Foundation of Brownism, by S.B., printed by Henr. Windet, 1588.
A Plain Declaration that our Brownists be full Donatists, by comparing them together from point to point, out of the writings of St. Augustine, by George Gifford, minister of God’s Word at Malden.
An Apology of the Church of England against the Brownists, written by Doctor [Joseph] Hall, now Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Master [Ricahrd] Bernard’s Separatists’ Schism.
The Prophane Schism of the Brownists or Separatists, with the impiety, dissensions, lewd and abominable vices of that impure sect, discovered by Christopher Lawne, John Fowler, Clement Sanders and Robert Bulward.
Item, a book called, The Shield of Defence: written against Master de le Cluse, in defence of Mr. Brightman, printed 1612.”
.
Richard Baxter
Schism Detected in both Extremes… (London: 1684), pt. 2, pp. 17-18
“…if those justly called Separatists, and who think parish communion under honest ministers [in the Anglican churches] to be idolatry, or unlawful, will but without prejudice read what is written to prove it lawful by the old, godly, judicious nonconformists, especially John Ball‘s Trial of Separation [1640], Mr. [Arthur] Hildersham [A Treatise of the Ministry of the Church of England, 1595], Mr. [William] Bradshaw [The Unreasonableness of the Separation, 1640, with William Ames], Dr. [William] Ames, Mr. [Thomas] Cartwright [A Letter of T.C. to Richard Harrison concerning Separation; note that EEBO has misidentified the author’s dates], Mr. [George] Gifford [whose three books are above], Mr. John Paget [An Arrow Against the Separation of the Brownists, 1618], Mr. [Thomas] Brightman [on Rev. 3, pp. 131-32], Mr. [William] Rathband [his three works above], etc. they will need no more to save them from this scandalous Schism.”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), ch. 58, ‘Whether Communion with so Faulty a Church be Lawful’, p. 230
“I had read the writings of those excellent men of God against Brownists, or Separation heretofore, who then were the Non-Conformists that did suffer so much for Reformation: He that will read what is written by Mr. John Paget, Mr. William Bradshaw, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Brightman, Mr. John Ball, Mr. Rathband, Dr. Ames, First and Second Manuduction, etc. and lately Mr. John Tombes, the pillar of the Anabaptists, and for [occasional] hearing by Mr. Philip Nye may see enough for just satisfaction, especially in Mr. Ball’s Trial of Separation.”
.
London Ministers
A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, pp. 62-63
“This was the constant judgment of the old non-conformists, which I shall transcribe from a grave author. ‘Those,’ says he:
‘that for many years together, during the reign of the three last princes [Edward VI, James I, Charles I], denied to come up to a full conformity to this [Anglican] Church, had a low oinion of the discipline then exercised (of which they have left behind them large evidences), yet how tender were they of the Church’s honour to keep Christians in communion?
How zealous were they against separation? as may appear in the labours of Mr. [Robert] Parker, Mr. [John] Paget, Mr. [John] Ball. Mr. [Thomas] Brightman laid us low enough, when he [in his Commentary on Revelation] did not only parallel us with luke-warm Laodicea, but made that Church the type, and we the antitype, by reason of our discipline; yet how zealous is he against separation from these assemblers, and breaks out in these words: ‘Therefore their error is wicked and blasphemous, who so forsake the Church, as if Christ were altogether banished thence.””
.
Theological
.
On Different Kinds of Separation & Distinctions about Persons
Quotes
Order of
London Presbyterians
Baxter
.
1600’s
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 113-14
“We are far from thinking that every difference in judgment or every separation from a Church makes a schism; for it is not the separation, but the cause that makes the schismatic. The godly-learned say that every unjust and rash separation from a true Church (that is, when there is no just cause, or at least no sufficient cause of the separation) is a schism.¹ And that there is a negative and positive schism: the former is when men do peaceably and quietly draw from communion with a Church, not making a head against that Church from which they are departed: the other is when persons so withdrawing do consociate and draw themselves into a distinct and opposite body, setting up a Church against a Church (as you [congregationalists] do), which Cameron calls a schism by way of eminency…²
¹ Augustine: Schisma, ni fallor, est eadem opinantem, et eodem ritu utentem solo Congregationis delectari dissidio, et Schismaticos facit non diversa fides, sed communionis disrupta societas. [Schism, unless I am mistaken, is when a person who holds the same opinion and uses the same rite delights solely in the dissension of the congregation; and what makes schismatics is not a different faith, but the ruptured fellowship of communion.] Contra Faustus, bk. 20, ch. 3.
William Ames: Schisma dicitur a scindendo, et est scissio, separatio, disjunctio, aut dissolutio unionis illius, quæ debet inter Christianos observari. Quia autem hæc Scissio maximè perficitur, & apparet in debitâ communione Ecclesiasticâ recusandâ, idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem, rectè vocatur Schisma. [Schism is so called from ‘splitting,’ and it is a tearing-apart, separation, disjunction, or dissolution of that union which ought to be maintained among Christians. Now because this rending-apart is chiefly carried out and made evident in refusing the due ecclesiastical communion, therefore that separation, by a particular and proper usage, is rightly called schism.] Cases of Conscience, bk. 5, ch. 12
John Cameron: Schisma est secessio in religionis negotio, vel temeraria, vel injusta, sive facta sit, sive continuata. [Schism is a withdrawal in a matter of religion—whether rash or unjust—whether it has been made or is being continued.] On the Church, tome 1, p. 396
² Cameron: Schisma aliud est, ut loquuntur in scholis, negativum, aliud positivum. Negativum vocamus, quod non exit in cœtum et societatem aliquam religiosam, sed simpliciter secessio est, et subductio; cum non instituitur Ecclesia, facto schismate etc. Positivum tum fit, cum instituitur Ecclesia, hoc est, cum fit consociatio quædam, quæ legibus Ecclesiasticis, et Dei verbo atque Sacramentorum administratione utitur separatim: quod quadam formulâ desumptâ ex Scriptura dicitur struere altare adversus altare, hoc est, quod Schisma Antonomasticωs dicitur, et κατ’ εξοχην, etc. [Schism, as they speak in the schools, is either negative or positive. We call ‘negative’ that which does not issue in forming any religious assembly or society, but is simply a withdrawal and drawing away, since no church is established when schism is committed, etc. ‘Positive’ schism occurs when a church is established—that is, when some association is formed which employs ecclesiastical laws and the administration of God’s word and sacraments separately; which, by a certain expression taken from Scripture, is called ‘setting up altar against altar,’ that is, what is called schism in the strict and proper sense, and par excellence, etc.] Of Schism, p. 402″
.
Richard Baxter
Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024)
p. 85
“There are several cases in which separation from the Church of England is sinful, as:
1. If any separate as the Papists do, because they are against sound doctrine or any good that is in the Church.
2. If any renounce communion with all the parish-churches under the name of the Church of England.
3. If any renounce communion with the Church of England as it is a Christian kingdom, headed by one Christian protestant king.
4. If they renounce communion with the Church of England as it is called one from the association or concord of its pastors or Church governors.
5. If any renounce communion with faulty bishops or worship, or discipline, simply and absolutely, and not only secundum quid [according to what; that is in a qualified manner], and so forsake the good that is in them for the sake of the evil.
In a word, 1. all that separate for a wrong cause, 2. or further than they separate from Christ, or than Christ would have them separate, do sin.
2. But they that renounce any corruption as such, and the Church no further than secundum quid [according to that], as it is faulty, do well: For we must so renounce the faults of all Churches and Christians in the world (and our own first), but not the Churches and Christians for any tolerable faults, so that we commit no sin ourselves, which they impose as the condition of their communion.”
.
pp. 86-87
“3. Some object the heinousness of the sins of ministers’ conformity as being deliberate covenanting to (I am loath to name them), and so the command, “from such turn away” [2 Tim. 3:5], with such “not to eat” [1 Cor. 5:11]… But these sins were never so surely proved as great as alleged:
1. Every minister cannot be proved guilty of the worst part.
2. And the matter of a sin may be heinous, and yet ignorance take off much of the guilt, as it did of Paul ‘s persecution [1 Tim. 1:13]. An unlawful war in which thousands were murdered and countries ruined is materially one of the greatest sins in the world; and yet woe to the abundance of princes and people if ignorance excuse it not and if we must renounce communion with all countries and persons that are guilty of it.
3. And when whole countries and Churches are in sin which we cannot cure and have no government of, the case of commanded communion much differs from that which is with single offenders, and that which is in our power to choose or refuse.
4. Some object that the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth canons have excommunicated us already. Therefore we separate not, but they cast us out. Answer: Let them that are concerned in those canons defend them if they can and justify themselves, for it’s past my skill; but we are not bound (though excommunicated) to execute them on ourselves: Let others do it if it must be done.”
.
Justifications for Religious Separation
Intro
Grounds for religious separation from churches include:
(1) their corruptions cause one to sin (a mere association with persons or such corrupt worship does not necessarily involve personal sin in all circumstances);
(2) the corruptions are infectious, having a tendency to draw oneself, or those one is responsible for (such as one’s family), to sin;
(3) if the corruptions fundamentally make the worship not edifying to oneself or those one is responsible for.
If a Church, such as the Roman Church, or some constitutionally liberal Churches in America, for instance, overturn certain fundamentals of the Christian faith, God says, ‘Come out of her my people’ (Rev. 18:4), as such overturns all three principles above, insofar as (1) such a close association with such severe sin is in itself sinful, (2) as such fundamental false teaching is inherently infectious, and (3) as such worship is detrimental and injurious to the spiritual health of the Christian.
Where Churches with corruptions are sound on the fundamentals of the faith, only the second and third principles above apply. The rational for the third principle is that all Church government, and the functions it exercises (such as public worship) has only been given for the good and edification of the Church (Eph. 4:11-13; 2 Cor. 13:8,10; 10:8); no authority has been given of Christ to Church government and its functions for the detriment of the Church (Christ’s people). Hence, one need not to submit to that which is harmful to them.
It should also be noted, in accordance with principles one and three above, that a corrupt Church systematically restraining persons, officers or a group of offices, from keeping positive commandments of God (such as the Great Commission, for instance) may be grounds for separation, insofar as a want, or omission, of conformity unto the Law of God, is sinful, and as such circumstances prohibit the good and edification of the Church and its work.
In this circumstance, of possibly setting up a separate Church communion, it ought to be weighed very carefully which is worse: (1) being restrained in the Church’s good work, or (2) having a separate Church communion. Where the latter is worse, the first ought to be tolerated. Where the first is worse, the second ought to be established.
Separations often happen due to unjust Church discipline of ministers. The ministers have been called of Christ to preach the Gospel. Unjust Church discipline prohibits them from preaching the Gospel in that Church communion. Therefore in order not to sin against their special calling by Christ, they continue ministerial functions outside of that Church communion in a newly formed Church communion.
Similarly, if actions are taken such that a Church’s constitution does not remain intact, this may involve sin for faithful ministers to remain bound to that same Church, if the constitution had upheld necessary, moral requisites for ministerial communion, and if the faithful ministers consider themselves still bound by the general equity of their vows to that constitution.
The separation here described only has relevance to separating for religious principles of faith and practice. Leaving a church, or transferring to a different church, due to legitimate providential factors, or simply because one (and one’s family) may spiritually grow more at a different, more faithful church has also been allowed by historic, reformed theology (as is seen on a subsection below on this page, as well as a section on our page, Church Membership). These justifications essentially fall under the third principle above.
Do note that if a church is separated from due to religious principles of faith and practice, it ought not to be an ultimate and absolute separation, and that in all degrees, but it ought to be only insofar as the danger necessitates, and that for the time. Desire for Church unity in peace and purity ought always to remain; and unity will only be had to the degree that peace and purity is had.
.
Quotes
Order of
London Presbyterians
McWard
M’Crie
.
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, p. 114
“[John] Cameron¹ calls a schism by way of eminency, and further tells us that there are four causes that make a separation from a Church lawful:
1. When they that separate, are grievously and intolerably persecuted.
2. When the Church they separate from is heretical.
3. When it is Idolatrical.
4. When it is the seat of Antichrist.
¹ Cameron: Temeritas secessionis deprehenditur, ut loquuntur, a posteriori, si ejus occasio levis sit: erit autem levis, nisi vel inciderit gravis & intolerabilis persecutio, vel ille cœtus unde fit secessio laboret hæresi, aut verò deditus fit Idololatriæ. [On Schism,] p. 399. And afterwards, p. 405: Quarta verò causa (cujus non meminimus supra, quia versabamur in thesi, hic vero meminimus, quia ventum est ad hypothesim) si agnitus fuerit Antichristus.”
.
Robert MacWard
The True Non-Conformist... ([Amsterdam?] 1671), 1st Dialogue, pp. 6-7
“4. You [Gilbert Burnet] suggest, that ‘Non-conformists think, they may quit the communion of the Church, if, in their opinion, [the Church is] not in the truth in every point’…
in name of all true non-conformists, that as they do not think they may quit the communion of the Church, if in their opinion, [it is] not in the truth, unless the difference be both real [as opposed to only a mistaken perception, etc.], & in profession and practice; so it is not every real difference in profession or practice that they hold to be a sufficient cause; nor do they judge that, even the cause being sufficient, the separation should be always carried to the extremity [furthest point];
but the sound and clear rule which they propose for Christian practice in this matter is that, where the controverted difference is such as would render a conjunction therein either [1.] sinful or [2.] contagious [infectious], then a just and proportionate separation, precisely and with all tenderness, commensurate to the exigence [need], is the safer course.”
.
Thomas M’Crie
On the Unity of the Church
.
To Not Join or Commune with a Church when it is Lawful, is Schism
Quotes
Order of
Durham
Rule
.
1600’s
James Durham
The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or a Treatise concerning Scandal... (Edinburgh: Higgins, 1659), pt. 4, ch. 7
pp. 315-16
“by way of precept there is an absolute necessity of uniting laid upon the Church, so that it falls not under debate whether a Church should continue divided or united in these [in thesis]… seeing that union is both commanded as a duty and commanded as eminently tending to the edification of the Church, and therefore is so frequently joined with edification?
Nor is it to be asked by a Church what is to be done for the Church’s good in a divided way, thereby supposing a dispensation, as it were, to be given to division and a forbearing of the use of means for the attaining thereof; or rather supposing a stating or fixing of division, and yet notwithstanding thereof, thinking to carry on edification?”
.
p. 320
“What cannot warrant a breach where there is union, that cannot warrantably be the ground to keep up a division; Now there are many miscarriages or defects, which are really gross, and yet will not warrant a schism, as all that write thereon do clear, and is obvious to all.
The reason of the consequence is, because making up of a breach is no less a duty than preventing thereof; and further, if it began upon such a ground, then the continuing thereof upon the same ground is but the continuing in the same sin; and it cannot be thought that any party by dividing upon an unjust ground can afterward be justified upon the same ground; It remains therefore, that if the ground was not sufficient at first to warrant a separation or division, it cannot be sufficient afterward to continue the same.”
.
p. 323
“…union has the advantage over division, because:
1. It is a commanded mean tending to edification, which division is not.
2. Division has no less nor fewer inconveniencies following it, nor [is] less destructive to the Church than union in the case supposed; yea, schism is one of the greatest hurts that can come to an orthodox Church, it being next to heresy in doctrine; and therefore no particular evil can be laid in the balance with it.
3. The ills of division are most inevitable, for the ills that follow union, through God’s blessing, may be prevented; it is not impossible, but in the way of division it is, because itself is out of God’s way.”
.
Gilbert Rule
The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), sect. 10 Rule was a Scottish divine-right presbyterian.
p. 247
“3. Unity consists in joining with and cleaving to the Church in all these acts of communions with her that the Lord has made our duty, so that it is not only schism to depart from a Church (without just cause) that we have been joined to, but not to join with some society of Christians when it is possible for us and when we can do it without sin; the former may be called a positive, this [latter] a negative separation.”
.
p. 249
“…our principle is that a man should part with what is dearest to him in the world to redeem the peace and unity of the Church; yea, that nothing can warrant or excuse it but the necessity of shuning sin.”
.
Rutherford’s Distinctions, Conclusions & Considerations on Separation
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (1642)
8 Distinctions
1. There is a separation in the visible Church, and a separation out of and from the visible Church.
2. There is a separation total and whole, from any visible communion with the Church; or partial and in part, from a point of doctrine or practice of the Church in a particular only.
3. There is a separation negative, when we deny the practice of an error with silence, or refuse public communion with the Church, but do not erect a new church within the Church. There is a separation positive, when one not only refuses practice of errors, and protests and pleads against them, but also erects a new visible church.
4. As there is a threefold communion: (1) in baptism, (2) in hearing of the Word, (3) in communion with the Church at the Lord’s Supper, so here is a threefold separation answerable thereunto.
5. The influence of a corrupt worship may either be thought to come from the persons with whom we worship, or from the matter of the worship, if corrupt; and that either, (1) by practice, or (2) by not practising something that an affirmative commandment of God imposes on us.
6. A communion in worship either implies a consent and approbation of the worship, or no consent at all.
7. A communion of worship when the worship in the matter is lawful, yet for the profession may be most unlawful, as to hear a Jesuit preach sound doctrine.
8. There is a separation from a friendly familiarity, and from a communion in worship.
.
8 Conclusions with Considerations & Distinctions
Conclusion 1: We are to separate in the true visible Church from all communion wherein need-force we cannot choose but sin, suppose we separate not from the Church (Eph. 5:11)…
Conclusion 2: From the first conclusion it will follow that a separation in part, I mean in some acts of public worship, when we cannot choose but fall in sin, from a true church, is lawful…
Conclusion 3: About Separation from Rome and spiritual Babel, we have two parties to satisfy… 1. Papists. 2. Separatists, opposers of Presbyterian government, who think we have all as good reason to separate from ourselves and presbyterian churches, as from Babel.
8 Considerations
Consideration 1: It is most false what Bellarmine says, Churches all withered as branches separated from trees when they separated from Rome. Joseph grew as a fruitful branch, and blessings were on the top of his head, when he was separated from his brethren (Deut. 33:16).
Consideration 2: The faithful before Luther, the Albigenses, Waldenses and others, yea the Roman doctors themselves holding fundamental points with some hay and stubble built upon the foundation, made a negative separation from Babylon, and did neither hold, nor profess their gross idolatries, and other fundamental errors; howbeit they did not hold them positively, by erecting a new church, because the separation was then in the blade, and not ripe for the harvest.
Consideration 3: We hold that Rome made the separation from the Reformed Churches, and not we from them, as the rotten wall makes the schism in the house, when the house stands still and the rotten wall falls.
Consideration 4: We separate not from acts of love to have the relics of Babel saved; howbeit we have separated from communion in faith and worship.
Consideration 5: The essential ingredients and reasons of a lawful divorce are here: 1. We could not lie in one bed with that sometime sister Church of Rome, but our skin behoved to rub upon her botch-boil, and therefore we did separate from nothing but corruption. 2. There was there persecutions, and in that we are patients and ejected rather than departers on foot and horse. 3. A professed dominion over our consciences. 4. Necessity of receiving the mark of the beast, and so the plagues of the beast, to worship images, and the work of men’s hands, a necessity of professing fundamental errors, that subvert the foundation of faith, did all necessitate our separation.
Consideration 6: The Church of believers might lawfully use justa tutela eternæ salutis, a necessary defence for salvation, and forsake her corrupt guides and choose others, and so we had the consent of the Church to the separation, and a voice from heaven, ‘Come out of her my people.’ [in Scripture]
Consideration 7: A collateral and sister Church, such as Rome ever was, is not said to separate from another; the lesser separates always from the greater, the member from the body. Where there is a schism, sister Protestant churches then cannot be said to separate one from another, nor can the crime of schism here be more objected to us than to Rome, but rather to Rome separating from orthodox and right believing Rome.
Consideration 8: We separate not from men but errors. 2. We separate from Papism kindly, properly and totally; from Christian articles in no sort. 3. From points of truth sewn and engraven with Popery only by accident, breaking the thread and needle that sowed them together.
As for the Church of Rome, supposing our reformers had their calling thence, yet have we a true ministry and there was a Church in Rome before the Lateran Council which could constitute a true ministry, as I clear in these distinctions, for the Church of Rome, it has these parts.
Distinction 1: The court of Rome and clergy; 2. the seduced people.
Distinction 2: 1. There is a teaching court professing and teaching popery, and obtruding it upon the consciences of others. 2. There is a people professing and believing this with heat of zeal. 3. A people misled, ignorant, not doubting but following. 4. There is a people of God, ‘Come out of her my people’, Therefore, there is a covenanted people of God there; 2 Thess. 2, Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, Therefore, God has a Temple in Rome.
Distinction 3: …a true Church is one thing veritate metaphysica [by metaphysical truth], with the verity of essence, as a sick man, or a man wanting a leg is a true man, and has a reasonable soul in him, and a true church vertate ethica, a church morally true, that is, a sound, whole, a pure church professing the sound faith, that is another thing…
Distinction 4: …the question is either of a teaching and a ministerial church, professing Christ, the Word and baptism, or of a believing church and spouse of Christ.
Distinction 5: If Rome relatively is a wife in comparison of other churches, of if Rome absolutely in herself is a Church?
Distinction 6: If Rome is jure and merito, a spouse, or a harlot, or de facto, a wife, not having received a bill of divorcement as the Church of the Jews [has].
Distinction 7: If Rome according to some parts is a spouse, and keeps any list of marriage kindness to her husband, or if she is according to other parts a cast off whore.
Distinction 8: If Rome is materially a Church, having in it the doctrine of faith, or if formally it is no Church, having no professed faith that has the nature of faith.
Voetius makes nine ranks of these that were not dyed and engrained papists in the Popish church: (1) Some deceived. (2) Some compelled. (3) Some ignorant. (4) Some careless, who took not heed to that faith. (5) Some doubting. (6) Some loathing it. (7) Some sighing. (8) Some opposing and contradicting it. (9) Some separating from it.
Conclusion 4: There are three sorts that have communion rightly with our church:
1. Infants baptized, for baptism is a seal of their fellowship with Christ, and therefore of communion with the Church; because separatists will have none members of the church while they can give no proofs thereof by signs of regeneration, infants must be without the church to them… Hence baptism shall either seal no entering infants in the church, contrary to God’s Word, or the baptizing of infants is not lawful…
2. The hearers of the Word have a communion with the Church as is clear, seeing these that eat of one bread are one body, these that profess in the hearing of the Word, that same faith, are also that same body in profession. Yet excommunicate persons are admitted as hearers of the Word, hence the extreme and great excommunication (1 Cor. 16:22) cuts off men from being simply no members of the Church; that excommunication that makes the party as a heathen and publican supposes him still to be a brother and hearer of the Word (2 Thess. 3:14-15). And all these are members of the Church, and yet not necessarily converted.
3. The regenerate and believers that communicate of one bread and one cup at the Lord’s table are most nearly and properly members of one visible body, and none of these are to separate from Christ’s body.
Conclusion 5: It is not lawful to separate from any worship of the Church for the sins of the fellow worshippers, whether they are officers or private Christians. 10 arguments.
Conclusion 6: A worship may be false in the matter two ways, either when we are to practice it, or give our assent to it, as to receive the sacraments after an unlawful manner [such as by kneeling], to assent to corrupt doctrine: that is never lawful; and here we may separate from the worship, when we separate not from the church. Or then the worship is false in the matter, but our presence does not make it unlawful to us; as professors may hear a preacher who preaches the body of divinity soundly, howbeit he mixes errors with it, because what everyone hears, they are to try ere they believe, as the Spirit of God teaches, 1 Thess. 5:21, ‘Try all things, hold fast what is good.’ 1 John 4:1, ‘Try the spirits.’ In so doing we separate from the sermon while we hear the good and refuse the evil; because we separate from the error of the worship, therefore to hear unsound doctrine is not to partake of false worship, because we are to hear the Pharisees, but to beware of their leaven, and finding it to be sour and unsound doctrine, we are to reject it.
Conclusion 7: A communion in worship, true in the matter, where the person called, for example, the preacher is a minister of Antichrist, is unlawful, because we are not to acknowledge any of Babel, or Baal’s priests, professing their calling to be of the Pope, the man of sin.
Conclusion 8: When we separate from a church overturning the foundation of religion, as from Rome, we are to keep a desire of gaining them, howbeit not a brotherly fellowship with them. Augustine says with us, we are in mercy to rebuke what we cannot amend, and to bear it patiently…
.
10 Considerations on Degrees of Separation, pp. 253-55
Diverse degrees of separation are to be considered, hence these [10] considerations:
1. There is a separation Negative, or a non-union, and a separation Positive. Though a Church of schismatics retains the sound faith, yet separating from others, be deserted by any, it is a Negative separation from a true church, and laudable, as the faithful in Augustine’s time did well in separating from the Donatists, for with them they were never one in that faction, though they separated not from the true faith held by Donatists, but kept a Positive union with them, so do all the faithful well to separate from the churches of the Separatists.
2. If the whole and most part of the church turns idolatrous and worships idols (which is essential idolatry), we are to separate from that church. The Levites and the two Tribes did well, as Mr. Ball ( Ball, in loc. cit.) says, to make a separation from Jeroboam’s calves, and the godly laudably (2 Kings 16:11) did not separate from the Israel and church of God because the Altar of Damascus was set up and because of the high places. Things dedicated unto idols, as Lutheran images may be called, and are called (1 Cor. 10:34) idolatry; yet are they idolatry by participation, and so the cup of devils (1 Cor. 10). Paul does not command separation from the Church of Corinth and the Table of the Lord there.
3. There is a separation from the church in the most part, or from the church in the least and best part. In Ahab’s time Israel, and the church thereof, for the most part worshipped Baal. Elijah, Micah, Obadiah and other godly separated from the Church of Israel in the most part. Jeremiah wished to have a cottage in the wilderness (no doubt a godly wish) that he might separate from the church, all them for the most part corrupted; yet remained they a part of the visible church and a part in the visible church, and therefore did he not separate from the church according to the least and best part thereof. The godly in England who refused the Popish ceremonies and antichristian bishops, did well not to separate from the visible church in England, and yet they separated from the main and worst part [in the Roman fold], which cannot be denied to be a ministerial church.
4. If a church is incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retains the true faith of Christ, it is presumed God has there some to be saved, and that where Christ’s ordinances are there also Christ’s church presence is. And therefore I doubt much if the church should be separated from, for the case is not here as with one simple person; for it is clear, all are not involved in that incorrigible obstinacy and that is yet a true visible communion in which we are to remain. For there is some union with the head Christ were the faith is kept sound, and that visibly, though a private brother remaining sound in the faith, yet being scandalous and obstinately falgitious is to be cast off as a heathen, yet are we not to deal so with an orthodox church where [the] most part are scandalous.
5. I see not but we may separate from the Lord’s Supper where bread is adored and from baptism where the sign of the cross is added to Christ’s ordinances, and yet are we not separated from the church; for we professedly hear the Word and visibly allow truth of the doctrine maintained by that church which do pollute the sacraments, and we are ready to seal it with our blood, and it is an act of visible profession of a church to suffer for the doctrine mentioned by that church.
6. We may hold what Ambrose (Ambrose commen., in loc., lib. 6, cap. I, Signa est ecclesia quæ fidem respuat, nec Apostolica prædicationis fundamenta possideat, ne qualibet perfidiæ possit aspergere, deserenda est. (It is a sign that a church which disapproves of the faith and does not abide by the Apostolic foundations of preaching ought to be abondoned, so that it cannot scatter its its treachery wherever it pleases.)) says well, that a church [lack]ing the foundation of the apostles is to be forsaken.
7. There is a forced separation through tyranny from personal communion, and a voluntary separation. David was forced to leave Israel and was cast out of the inheritance of the Lord. The former is not our sin, and our separation from Rome has something of the former. The latter would be wisely considered.
8. There may be causes of non-union with a church which are not sufficient causes of separation. Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jews, though they rejected Christ, till they openly blasphemed (Acts 13:44-46; 18:16). And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook his raiment and said unto them, ‘Your blood be upon your heads, I am clear, from henceforth I will go to the Gentiles.’ There is a lawful separation, and yet before the Jews came to this there was no just cause why any should have joined to the Church of the Jews which denied the Messiah and persecuted his servants (Acts 4, 5), seeing there was a cleaner church to which converts might join themselves (Acts 2:40-42).
9. There is no just cause to leave a less clean church [in the dogmatic and renouncing way of the Separatists] (if it is a true church) and to go to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a member of no church has liberty of election to join to that church which he conceives to be purest and cleanest.
10. When the greatest part of a church makes defection from the truth, the lesser part remaining sound, the greatest part is the church of separatists though the maniest and greater part in the actual exercise of discipline is the church; yet in the case of right discipline, the best though fewest is the church. For truth is like life, that retires from the maniest members unto the heart and there remains in its fountain in case of danger.
.
.
The Ungodly Joining in Prayer is not a Ground of Separation
Rutherford on Saying ‘Amen’, No Reason for Separation
.
Practical
.
Persons may Leave for a More Profitable Church
See also ‘Reasons for Not Becoming a Member of a Church’.
.
Sometimes persons misread the Scottish Second Reformation writers, as if in their polemic against the Separatists they were saying that a person could never leave one local church for another, except the first one wholesale apostatized. That is not the case.
.
Order of
Quotes 10+
Articles 2
Attendance is for Edification 1
.
Quotes
Order of
Perkins
Rutherford
Rathband
Burroughs
Baxter
Durham
Presbyterians & Independents
Owen
Howe
Owen
Tallents
.
1600’s
William Perkins
‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 699
“Paul says, ‘Godliness is our gain’, and the reason is, because ‘it has the promise of this life and the life to come.’ (1 Tim. 4:8) Upon this we must be admonished evermore to worship God, and that with all care and diligence, because the worship of God is not his benefit, but our benefit and salvation.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Due Right of Presbyteries... (London, 1644), pt. 1, ch. 4, section 4, question 5
p. 73
“The most that these [particular] arguments of our [separatist] Brethren do prove, is but that it is lawful to go, and dwell in a congregation where Christ is worshiped in all his ordinances, rather than to remain in that congregation where He is not worshipped in all his ordinances and where the Church censures are neglect∣ed, which to us is no separation from the visible Church, but [only] a removal from one part of the visible Church to another, as he separates not out of the house, who removes from the gallery, to remain and lie and eat in the chamber of the same house, because the gallery is cold and smokey, and the chamber not so, for he has not made a vow never to set his foot in the gallery.”
.
p. 71
“1. I see not how all these arguments [of Thomas Hooker] taken from moral commandments, do not oblige son as well as father, servant as master, all are Christ’s freemen, son or servant, so as they are to obey what ever Christ commands, Mt. 18:10, and with the Spouse to seek Christ in the fullest measure and in all his ordinances; and son and servant are to know their own heart, so as they have need of all Christ’s ordinances, and are no more to remain in a congregation where their souls are famished because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure;
[If the sinful exercise of an authority over us releases us from God’s commandment] then the apostles Acts 4:29 & 5:29 were to preach no more in the name of Jesus, because the rulers commanded them to preach no more in his name.”
.
William Rathband
A Brief Narration of Some Church Courses Held in Opinion & Practice in the Churches Lately Erected in New England: Collected out of Sundry of their own Printed Papers… (London, 1644), ch. 2, p. 3, margin note. Rathband was an English puritan and Westminster divine.
“…or else they [Christians] must [on congregationalist principles] be fetched from places so far distant as must force them either to travel far from their several abodes to the same meeting place for worship winter and summer, or else many of them to be without all church-ordinances, or to enjoy them rarely:
The former of which is oppressive to their bodies, the later injurious to their souls; neither of them seems suitable to the goodness and wisdom of God, who (as ’tis said of the Sabbath [Mk. 2:27]) has made Church-ordinances for man, not man for Church-ordinances.”
.
Jeremiah Burroughs
Irenicum, to the Lovers of Truth & Peace, Heart-Divisions Opened in the Causes & Evils of Them… (London, 1653), ch. 23, p. 164
“Sixthly, as things are yet with us [congregationalist churches], there is no such great reason of that outcry there is amongst us against gathering of churches [out of other churches] as so great a dividing practice as many seem to make it. How can this practice be so very offensive when almost all of you [non-Independents] think it lawful for a man for any commodiousness to remove from that church of which now he is, to join with another, sobeit he will remove his dwelling?”
.
Gisbert Voetius
Ecclesiastical Politics tr. by AI (Amsterdam: Joannes à Waesberge, 1663–1676), vol. 1, ‘The Nature of the Instituted Church’, pp. 65-70 (PDF pp. 71-77)
“Question: Whether it is permissible to migrate and transfer from one Church to a more perfect Church; or whether one must indeed remain perpetually in the Church whose communion one has entered.
Answer:
Conclusion 1. It is permissible to migrate from a Church laboring under errors (though they do not undermine the entire foundation) in doctrine; especially if scandals have arisen and errors are more firmly established, and there is no hope of correction. Thus migration from a Lutheran Church or from the original and Five-Article Remonstrant Church (for judgment about Socinian Remonstrants must be made differently) to a Reformed Church has never been disapproved by us.
Conclusion 2. Even from a Church which in doctrine is indeed sound, but is schismatic and finally lapses into errors unless it maturesly[?] recedes and returns to where it was undone. Such I judge to have been the congregation of the Brownists, who some years ago in Leiden, under the guidance of [John] Robinson, a man otherwise known for his piety, erudition, and zealous devotion, used to be held.
Conclusion 3. It is not to be disapproved that someone, in pursuit of better progress and tranquility of conscience, should pass over to a Church purer and more perfect in the simplicity of rites, governance, and discipline, adding also in effective ministry and preaching, in public and domestic exercises of piety, and in effective and more frequent examples of piety; provided it is done through migration from place to place. Indeed, change of habitation wards off the appearance of schism, scandals, contentions, and other inconveniences that might arise from there.
Conclusion 4. But to transfer from one Church to another of the same confession or even of a different language known to oneself, without the conscience and consent of both Churches, indeed goes against the order established by Christ, and begets contentions, factions, schisms, scandals.
Conclusion 5. It must not be denied, however, that prudently something should be allowed or even done in various cases. Such as, for example, where particular contentions arise between someone and a minister, or ministers, or presbytery, or some brothers in a certain Church: it is better after reconciliation has been initiated, either wholly or temporarily to dismiss the one demanding it, so that both his and the Church’s tranquility may be consulted, and all occasions for renewed exacerbations may be more effectively cut off, or so that impending schisms may be prevented.
…
17th Question: Whether for the sake of greater purity and integrity, one should move from one Church to another even without the consent of the Church being left? Answer:
1st Conclusion: If the Churches into whose communion one moves were previously gathered or constituted in greater purity and integrity of doctrine and rites, either before corruption or even after corruption, whether initiated or established, in the same place, city, field, or district, I see no reason why explicit and external communion with the Church in which one has hitherto lived cannot be desired towards better and more perfect things. Thus in Belgium, Lutherans moving from their Churches to ours are welcomed with goodwill; although our people are not unaware that Lutherans do not approve of them leaving.
2nd Conclusion: The situation is different if someone had made a separation from Lutheran Churches and ours, especially ones not yet established, before the [Lutheran] Book of Concord [1580, which was separatistic] and devised new and separate Churches: then I would not wish anyone to be the author of a division, against the common consensus and protestation of the reforming theologians (about which see Sacramentary History of Hofmann).
1. Because at that time there was a distrust of doctrine, confined to one article concerning the presence of the body in the Supper… according to the declaration of both parties in the Marburg Colloquy of 1529.
2. Because the ubiquity [of Christ’s human nature] with appendices, and conditional predestination, along with the true, final apostasy of the faithful, were not commonly accepted then [by the Lutherans], let alone
elevated into the doctrines of the Church and fundamental principles.
3. Because the Lutherans themselves had not yet formally resolved their previous schism, and as if they had ejected us from their Churches.
3rd Conclusion: Where there is agreement in doctrine, but rightly someone dissents in rituals and governance, he can nevertheless exercise communion in that Church without approval of these defects, whether directly or indirectly: I would not wish to be the author of a migration from his Church, except in cases where the Church of the same confession and doctrine without those defects, and without the burden or annoyance of tolerating them, can be had; he would be cast out, or by schism negatively, to live outside all ecclesiastical communion; or by positive schism, to establish another separate Church there in the same place, against the Church which should have been and whose liberty permits it. And I think this was the cause that was discussed among English theologians and Separatists or Brownists (as they are called) before. Leaving hypotheticals, we disapprove their theoretical and principal assertions against the Anglican Church, with Paget, Ames, and others alien to ceremonies and the episcopal government of the Anglicans.
4th Conclusion: Yet it is far from me to accuse orthodox and pious brothers of schism who, in recent years, have freely through the Anglican Churches and pulpits, the most frequently, with the ceremonies imposed by the new Papists, had secret and publicized committees separated from their conscience for their building; so that
they did not send the rejection of the Anglican Churches, the better of reformationist times and the powers of truth from the lords, expecting in the meantime. The right to do so was suitable for themselves as well as for some Belgian Churches, the time for the contention in the course of the baptism: Read the apology for the fact in 26 & 29.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Reasons of the Christian Religion… (London: White, 1667), pt. 2, ch. 13, pp. 465-66 Baxter was a congregationalist.
Ҥ13. He that does not nullify or unchurch a church, may lawfully remove from one church to another and make choice of the best and purest, or that which is most suited to his own edification, if he be a free-man.
§14. But in case of such choice or personal removal, the interest of the whole church, or of religion in common, must be first taken into consideration by him that would rightly judge of the lawfulness of the fact.”
.
The Cure of Church Divisions… (London, 1670)
pt. 1, Direction 36, p. 204
“Fifthly, when you are to choose what minister or church you will statedly have your ordinary communion with, you should not prefer a less reformed church or a less worthy pastor, or one that is erroneous, before a better, but choose that which is most to your true edification.
Sixthly, if you live under a worse and unreformed Church, or unprofitable minister, if necessity hinder not, you may remove your dwelling to a better.
Seventhly, and where churches are near and there is no great hurt or disorder [that] will follow it, you may join with another church without removing your dwelling: But this you may not do when the hurt to the public is like to be greater than the good to you.
Eighthly, and you must not conclude that the more faulty church and minister may not lawfully be communicated with though for your benefit you choose a better, for this is the true crime of sinful separation.
But surely a man’s soul is so precious that all men should prefer the greatest helps for their salvation before the less; and think no just means too dear to purchase them.”
.
pt. 2, Direction 6, p. 342
“Distinguish between those who deny the being of the church or ministry from which they separate, and those who remove only for their own edification, as from a weaker or worse minister, and from a church more culpable and less pure.”
.
The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), sect. 6
pp. 38-39
“It is one thing to deny total communion, and another to separate but secundum quid for some act or part; And that is either a great and necessary part or some small or indifferent thing or ceremony.
It is one thing to separate locally by bodily absence, and another mentally by schismatical principles.
It is one thing to separate from a church as accusing it to be no church of Christ, and another to separate from it only as a true Church, but so corrupted as not to be communicated with.
It’s one thing to judge its communion absolutely unlawful, and another only to forsake it for a better which is preferred:
It’s one thing to depart willfully, and another to be unwillingly cast out.
It’s one thing to depart rashly and in haste, and another to depart after due patience, when reformation appears hopeless.
It is one thing to remove upon religious reasons, and another upon civil or domestical, or corporal [reasons].”
.
pp. 57-58
“3. Every man (especially experienced Christians) have more sense and knowledge of what is profitable and congruous to them than standers-by have, how learned soever:
As ignorance makes a few, short, plain, oft repeated words in a familiar style more profitable to low-bred persons than an accurate learned discourse would be, so men’s several tempers and vices makes that matter and manner of preaching profitable to them which to others seems otherwise;
And as a nice lady must not tie her family of laboring persons to the matter and measure of her diet, nor revile them as gluttons or fools if they like it not.
No more must learned men confine plain people to wordy orations (whether learned or pedantic) and say, ‘This is best for them’. Much less must they silence causlessly such teachers as truly profit them, or tie them to homilies or liturgies only and say, ‘Here is as much as is necessary to salvation.’
Nor is it any schism in the people if they refuse to be so confined by them and denied such helps to their salvation as God has sent them and made their due.”
.
pp. 88-112
“LIII… 2… without holiness none shall see God, Heb. 12:14… It is not then easy to think of a greater hurt than to forbid men such means, without which experience assures us that few comparatively are thus enlightened and renewed to God, and with which more comparatively are renewed.
To say that God can bless to us an ignorant heartless, carnal teacher, is no answer while experience certifies us that comparatively He does not do it…
3. For who knows where to bound his obedience to such silencers as aforesaid… if 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 parishes must choose the apparent hazard of their souls and refuse such helps as experience certifies us they greatly need, in obedience to man, why must not the rest of the parishes do so also? May I give away the needful helps to my salvation because others have them, as if their salvation might satisfy me instead of my own?
…
LX… He is not the physician whom we can trust that does not cure men…
…
LXII. If the people, conscious of their great necessity of pastoral oversight and help, and of Christ’s command to use it, do live in a parish or country where they cannot have it from those that the magistrate allows, either because they cannot perform it for them or because they will not: it is no schism for such to seek and use it from worthy, though prohibited men.
We before spake of the schisms of teachers, and now [we will speak] of hearers… In several cases the people may possibly be [unfortunately] deprived of this [pastoral oversight]…
1. When public pastors are at so great a distance from them as that such pastors cannot come to them, nor they and their families go so far without such inconvenience and trouble as will frustrate the end of their endeavors: As in France where the Protestants must go twenty miles or ten to a church, which the weak, children and aged cannot do, nor the rest of the family without such cost and pains, and loss of time as will deprive them of the benefit…
2. Where parishes are so great that the allowed pastors cannot preach to half or a fourth or tenth part of the people, and cannot visit half the sick, and baptize, and administer the Lord’s Supper as is necessary, and have not time if the ignorant and doubting, and troubled persons should come to them for counsel, resolution or comfort…
3. Where the allowed pastors are so slothful or proud that they will not condescend to these offices of personal help to many thousands, especially of the poor.
4. Where they are young raw men, or ignorant of such matters, unable to counsel people as their necessities require, in order to their salvation…
5. Where they are so profane and malignant that if poor people come to them with cases of conscience, or for counsel what they must do to be saved, they will but deride them as scrupulous and precise, and make them believe that to be solicitous about salvation and afraid of sinning, and seriously godly, is but to be hypocrites, melancholy or mad…
6. When they are heretical and not to be trusted in point of faith.
7. And when they are so factious and schismatical as that their preaching and conference tends to render other good Christians odious, and stir up men to hate, persecute or separate from them, and so to destroy true love and concord.
In any of these cases when the people or part of them are deprived of those pastoral helps which their necessity requires, and God commands, they may seek it where they can best have it.
LXIII. In all these cases it is an unsatisfactory answer to tell them that religion is kept up in the land and that other persons or parishes have what they want, or that order and obedience must be preferred to their supply, or that God can save them without a pastor, etc. For so God can save the heathen world without the Gospel preached if He please: And so you might persuade the poor to famish rather than [go] against law to beg, because if thousands of them die of famine, yet other people are supplied and have plenty: Or you might tell men that they must use no physician, though they die for it, if they have no tolerable one allowed them by the magistrate, because others have physicians…
What if the parish priest could baptize but one of many (or not all)? Must the rest be content to be unbaptized? If not, why must they be content without all public preaching and worshipping of God, and the Lord’s Supper, and personal helps of pastors which they need?
LXIV. Yet here we must declare:
1. That in such necessity people must, caeteris paribus [‘other things being equal’], first seek their supply in that way that is most for peace and most for public good, and least scandalous or dividing, and that is most agreable to the ruler’s will and honour.
2. That for some short season in which his soul is not apparently hazarded, as also in the tolerable loss of some measures of pastoral help, a man must submit his own personal advantage to public interest and may hope that God will make it up. As also when it tends to his probable greater advantage afterward by putting by some present storm: But not statedly, to be without Christ’s instituted ordinances and helps.
For example, parish order is desireable and is the ruler’s will: If therefore supply can be had in a neighbor parish for them that want [lack] it in their own, and by an allowed minister rather than a disallowed, it should be chosen, unless the disparity be so great as to weigh down the contrary inconveniences. And if for a time any be constrained to another way, they should do it but as an extraordinary necessity for the present time till they can be supplied in the allowed parochial way; and avoid as much as possibly they can all ways, though lawful, that encourage true schisms.
3. And we must profess that if any preachers or people shall out of self conceitedness pretend necessity when there is none, their pretence is no justification of their disorder or disobedience. Magistrates may regulate us in the circumstances of those duties which the Law of Nature or the Gospel [in an established Christian nation] do command: But if on such pretence of regulating circumstances, they will violate or contradict either the Law of Nature or the Gospel, and destroy the duty itself or its end, we are not bound in such cases to obey them, but must pariently suffer.
…
LXVI…
4. Cyprian’s conclusion before mentioned is known, inviting the people to forsake a bad pastor, Plebs maximam habet potestatem [‘The people have the greatest power’], etc. And he convinces the people that if they forsake not such they are guilty.
…
LXVII… God will have mercy rather than sacrifice [Hos. 6:6], and prefers men’s salvation to ceremony or Church laws.”
.
The True & Only Way of Concord of All the Christian Churches… (London: Hancock, 1680), pt. 3, ‘Of Schism’, ch. 1, pp. 7-8
“Sect. XVII. It is lawful to separate from particular churches in all the degrees and cases following: 1. It is lawful to abate our esteem of any church or pastor as they are less worthy, or more corrupt or culpable, and to value more the more worthy.
Sect. XVIII. 2. It is lawful to remove one’s dwelling from one city or parish to another, for the just reasons of our worldly affairs, and thereby to remove from other churches: And it is lawful to do the same for the good of our souls, when one minister is bad or less fit for our edification and one church more corrupt and culpable and others more sound and pure and their communion more conducible to our salvation.
Sect. XIX. 3. Parish bounds being but human institutions for order sake, it is lawful to be of a church in a neighbor parish instead of one’s own parish church in case we have the allowance of the higher powers, or without that in cases of true necessity, or when consideratis considerandis, the benefit is evidently greater than any hurt that it is like to do. For no man has power to bind me to that which is to the danger or detriment of my soul unless (at least) some greater notorious interest of the community require it.
If my parish have an ignorant, unsound teacher or a weak, dull, dangerous or unprofitable, careless or scandalous, vicious pastor, [and] yet tolerable rather than to have none, or judged tolerable by the rulers, and the next parish have an able, holy, faithful pastor, by whom I am more abundantly edified, I am not bound by man’s commands to trust the conduct of my soul with the former or to deny myself the benefit of the latter when I cannot remove my dwelling: For men’s power is not to destruction but to edification; and order is for the thing ordered and not against it. My soul is more Christ’s and my own than the rulers. And I am not unthankfully to neglect the helps offered me by Christ (who ascended to give gifts to men for the edifying of his Body) merely because a man commands me so to do.”
.
Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024), pp. 77-78
“There is so great a difference of men and cases that it’s gross sottishness to think that their duties and sins are the same in mutable circumstances:
It’s a sin to preach or pray when we should be quenching a fire, saving men’s lives. Christians, as well as Pharisees, are yet to learn what that means, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice, and therefore accuse the guiltless.” [Mt. 12:7]
Some men have no possibility of any other church-worship but in the parish-churches. Some have no other possibility but what is worse. Some may have abler teachers, but at the cost of imprisonment and ruin. It is not lawful to lie in prison merely for refusing to hear a weak nonconformist when you might hear an abler: and so it is in the case of conformists, else all were bound to a few men.
Some have liberty to hear fitter men, or at the least, more agreeable to them, without greater hurt than good (as the Dutch and French here have). Some are commanded by husbands, parents and masters to one church, and some to another. Some have more able and godly ministers in the parish-churches, and some have such as I would never own or encourage in the ministry by seeming to own them.
Some can remove their dwelling and some cannot. Some had liberty the last year that cannot have it this year without more hurt than their benefit will compensate.
In these cases where God has not at all tied us to a [Service-]book, or no book, to this church or to that, he that can truly tell which way he shall do and get most good or hurt, may by that better know his duty than by these arguments or men’s censures.”
.
Schism Detected in both Extremes, or Two Sorts of Sinful Separation… (London: 1684), ch. 4, p. 26
“XXVII. Self-interest, self-government and family-government are all antecedent to public government, which rules them for the common good, but has no authority to destroy them: No king or prelate can bind a man to do that which would damn his soul, nor to omit that which is needful to his salvation: All power is for edification: They are God’s ministers for God.
XXVIII. As it belongs to self-government to choose our own diet, and clothes, and wives, and physicians, (though we may be restrained from doing public hurt on such pretences); And it belong to family government to educate our own children, and choose their tutors, callings, wives, etc. so it more nearly belongs to self-government to choose the most safe and profitable means of our own salvation, which no man may forbid us; and to avoid that which is pernicious or hurtful; and to family-government to do the like for our children.”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), ch. 58, ‘Whether Communion with so Faulty a Church be Lawful’,
p. 224
“You must distinguish between:
…
II. Between those parish-churches which have godly or tolerable pastors and those that have not.
III. Between ministry and lay-communion.
IV. Between stated and occasional communion.
V. Between preferring their churches before better, and not avoiding them as null, or as unlawful to be communicated with.”
.
pp. 225-26
“V. When I can have better, caeteris paribus [other things being equal], without greater hurt than good, I prefer it; and only use occasional local communion with the [Anglican] liturgy-churches, as I would do with strangers were I in foreign lands.
VI. Where I can have no better without more hurt than good, I communicate constantly and only with the parish-church where I live, as to local-communion.”
.
pp. 232-33
“Lawyer: But why go you to the parish-churches when you might have better?
Minister:
1. All non-conformists preach not better than many of them; yea, the liturgy is better words of prayer than some weak or faulty non-conformists often use.
2. A brown loaf and a white one both may be better than a white one alone; I found both best; and I knew it sin to renounce communion with any Church for weakness because they are not as good as others.
3. That is best at one time and place that is not so at another; praying in itself is better than working, and eating, sleeping. And yet in their proper time your servant’s working and your eating and sleeping is better than praying at that time. One that is a son, a servant, a wife who is commanded by the master of the family to hear a tolerable parish-minister may then find it better than disorderly and disobediently to hear an abler man; that may by variety of conditions be one man’s duty which is another’s sin.”
.
Catholic Communion Defended against both Extremes, and Unnecessary Division Confuted in Five Parts... (1684), Unnecessary Separating Disowned, pp. 4-5
“3. And if communicants will be at the charge of maintaining a pastor whom they can better trust their souls with, than him whom the patron chooses for them, the orthodox or tolerating magistrate must see that he be not an heretic, that does more hurt than good; and must keep them under the laws of loyalty and peace, and see that they sow not sedition, and revile not others under pretense of worshipping God.
4. And no men should, without necessity, lose the advantages of a public ministry which the most consent to, and which has the magistrates countenance and maintenance; because gathering singular churches within parish-bounds, seems some accusation of the parish-minister or Church; and such Churches are oft tempted to envy and censoriousness, and are usually envied and censured by others: And unity is much of our strength and beauty. But in case of necessity it may be done.”
.
Church Concord, containing: I. a Dissuasive from Unnecessary Division & Separation, & the Real Concord of the Moderate Independents with the Presbyterians… (London: Parkhurst, 1691), pt. 2, Question 2, pp. 67-68
“18. And if the unsoundness, badness or weakness of the pastors and the faultiness of the worship, order or discipline be not so great as to make communion with the church simply unlawful, yet any free man whose edification is greatly hindered by it, and can elsewhere have far greater helps for his salvation and join with a church which walks more conformably to the Christian rule, may lawfully remove himself to such a ministry and church, when it is not to the greater hurt of others than his own good. Especially such whose ignorance, weakness and deadness makes a lively and convincing ministry more needful to their safety and welfare than it is to others: For it is a sin, caeteris paribus [other things being equal], to prefer the worse before the better, and a sin to neglect the best means for our souls which we can lawfully enjoy: And the soul is more precious than to be hazarded or left in sin and darkness for an unnecessary circumstance.”
.
James Durham
The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal (1659), pt. 2, ch. 15, p. 152
“And is it likely, where the order formerly laid down is observed, that there can be habitual admission of notoriously or grievously scandalous persons, though, it may be, there be lesser fallings of several sorts: Yet, supposing that any out of infirmity or affection, not having such knowledge, or otherwise, should stick to join in the ordinances at some times, or in some places, upon such an account, who yet do not love separation, or the erecting of a different Church, we say further:
1. That, in such a case, such persons may remove from one congregation to another, where such grossness cannot be pretended to be; and the persons being otherwise without scandal, can neither be pressed to continue (they being so burdened) nor yet refused to be admitted where orderly they shall desire to join, seeing this could not be denied to any. And, we suppose few will be so uncharitable as to think there is no congregation whereunto they can join, or yet so addicted to outward respects, as to choose separation with offence to others, disturbance to the Church, and, it may be, with little quietness to themselves, whenas they have a remedy so inoffensive allowed unto them.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’, p. 35 This was at the Savoy Conference (1661). About half the ministers were Westminster divines.
p. 35
“…and while we took it [the Anglican Book of Common Prayer] to be a defective, disorderly and inconvenient mode of worship, it would be our sin to use it of choice while we may prefer a more convenient way, whatever we ought to do in case of necessity when we must worship God inconveniently or not at all.”
.
p. 65
“But if we prove indeed that it [the Anglican Liturgy] is ‘defective and faulty, that you bring for an offering to God,’ when you [bishops] or your neighbors have a better, which you will not bring, nor suffer them that would (Mal. 1:13) and that you call evil good in justifying its blemishes, which in humble modesty we besought you to amend, or excuse us from offering, then God will better judge of the unlawful act than you [bishops] have done.”
.
John Owen
A Brief Vindication of the Non-Conformists from the Charge of Schism… (1680), p. 18
“And we must also add that whatever be their original and constitution, if all their governors were as the apostles, yet have they no power but what is for edification, and not for destruction; If they do or shall appoint and impose on men what tends unto the destruction of their souls, and not unto their edification, as it is fallen out in the Church of Rome; not only particular churches, but every individual believer is warranted to withdraw from their communion…
Let none mistake themselves herein, believers are not made for churches, but churches are appointed for believers. Their edification, their guidance and direction in the profession of the faith and performance of divine worship in assemblies according to the mind of God, is their use and end; without which they are of no signification.
The end of Christ in the constitution of his churches, was not the molding of his disciples into such ecclesiastical shapes, as might be subservient unto the power, interest, advantages and dignity of them that may in any season come to be over them; but to constitute a way and order of giving such officers unto them, as might be in all things useful and subservient unto their edification; as is expresly affirmed, Eph. 4:11-14.”
.
The True Nature of a Gospel Church & its Government… (London, 1689), ch. 10, pp. 225-26 Owen was a congregationalist puritan.
“1. Where persons are esteemed members of churches by external causes without their own consent, or by parochial cohabitation, they may remove from one church unto another by the removal of their habitation according unto their own discretion. For such cohabitation being the only formal cause of any relation to such a church in particular, upon the ceasing of that cause, the relation ceases of its own accord.
2. Where persons are members of churches by mutual confederation, or express personal consent, causeless departure from them is an evil liable unto many aggravations.
3. But whereas the principal end of all particular churches is edification, there may be many just and sufficient reasons why a person may remove himself from the constant communion of one church unto that of another. And of these reasons he himself is judge on whom it is incumbent to take care of his own edification above all other things. Nor ought the church to deny unto any such persons their liberty desired, peaceably and according unto order.”
.
1700’s
John Howe
‘Some Consideration of a Preface to an Inquiry Concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters, etc.’ in The Works of John Howe, vol. 5, Containing the Treatises: On Divine Prescience & the Trinity… (Religious Tract Society, 1863) Howe (1630-1705) was an English puritan and presbyterian theologian.
“But if one avoid more ordinary communion with a church, as judging it, though not essentially defective, yet to want [lack] or err in some circumstances so considerable as that he counts [that] another church comes nearer the common Christian rule, the Holy Scriptures, and finds its administrations more conducing to his spiritual advantage; he may be led, by the judgment of his conscience, both, sometimes upon weighty and important reasons to communicate with the former [defective Church], and continue therein, according as those reasons shall continue urgent upon him; and yet, sometimes, as the cessant or diminished weight of such reasons shall allow, to communicate with the other [more spiritually advantageous church].”
.
“And yet the same person may perhaps think the communion of another church preferable, and, for ordinary resort, rather to be chosen; as wherein he finds the same essence, with more regular, grateful, and advantageous modes and ways of administration.”
.
Some may here, perhaps, [object and] say: ‘What one judges best ought to be chosen always.’… How would such a one stare, if one should oppose a downright negative to his confident assertion, and say: ‘What is best, in matter of practice, is not to be chosen and done always?’”
.
James Owen
Moderation a Virtue, or, The Occasional Conformist Justified from the Imputation of Hypocrisy… (London: Baldwin, 1703), pp. 11-12 Owen (1654-1706) was an English, congregationalist puritan.
“But because he conceives the dissenting churches to be true churches also, their ministers generally men of real piety, good learning, and zealously active to save immortal souls… And… because he finds the discipline of the Established Church defective… on the other hand [he] finds the preaching of the dissenting ministers generally more close, methodical, and lively; their ministrations more pure, without those human mixtures… the power of practical religion is more visibly kept up among them…
These, and other considerations of the like nature, determine him to hold stated communion with some dissenting congregation, where he thinks himself better edified than in the parochial assemblies. He judges himself obliged to get the best helps he can for his soul, and thinks he ought not to be more restrained in the choice of a spiritual guide for the benefit of his soul than he is in the choice of a lawyer or physician for the preserving of his estate and bodily health.”
.
Francis Tallents
A Short History of Schism: for the Promoting of Christian Moderation & the Communion of Saints (London: Parkhurst, 1705), p. 110 Tallents (1619–1708) was a non-conforming English presbyterian minister.
“Tis said [for conforming in church to what is less good:] ‘What we may do sometimes, we may and ought to do always.’ But we have hundreds of instances that we would be loth to do that always which we might do and have done sometimes.
We have often eat bad and unwholesome meat, dwelt in inconvenient and bad houses, etc. but are we bound to do so always? So some have been forced and been glad to use such helps for their souls as they could get, but are they bound to use them always? If we have better means and helps, should we not use them rather?
Reason speaks it, and Scripture also, and gives us some examples which look that way. St. Paul circumcised Timothy, but opposed it in others, and would not let Titus be circumcised. He also, to satisfy the believing Jews that were too zealous for the Law, and misinformed of him, took men, shaved his head, purified himself with them, entered into the Temple, etc. This he did once, but would he have done so always?”
.
Articles
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – ch. 45, ‘Whether parents have not more right than our [civil] patrons to choose pastors and church communion for their children’ in The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 169-73
London Ministers – pp. 38-45 in ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’ in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1
“But supposing it may be unlawful to separate from a Church for a defective and faulty worship, yet it may be supposed that it may be lawful when it is for better edification, and that we may choose what is for our edification before what is not, and what is more for our edification before what is less.” – p. 38
“Lastly, when they [the older non-conformist leaders] do grant that edification may serve to guide us, and that we may hear where we can most profit, it’s with such limitations and cautions as these: it must be seldom, in a great case, without offence and contempt. Thus Mr. [Arthur] Hildersham:
‘I dare not condemn such Christians, as, having pastors in the places where they live of meaner gifts, do desire (so they do it without open breach or contempt of the Church’s order) to enjoy the ministry of such as have better gifts, etc. so they do it without contempt of their own pastors, and without scandal and offence to them and their people.’ (Lecture 54, p. 253)” – p. 44
.
Attendance is for Edification (1 Cor. 14)
Quotes
1600’s
Wilhelm Apollonius
A Consideration of Certain Controversies at this Time Agitated in the Kingdom of England concerning the Government of the Church of God (London: 1645), ch. 3, ‘Of an Institute Visible Church’
pp. 24-25
“We judge an external visible particular church to be a church duly and lawfully constituted according to the pattern of the churches erected by the apostles, which, when it may be, does in one place under the inspection of one pastor and elders adjoined, frequent the service of God for their mutual edification.”
.
pp. 33-34
“…but the Church of Christ as visible and external: as being that which is distinguished by the visible sacrament or sign of baptism, [1 Cor. 12] v. 13, which consists of various and heterogeneous external members and organs, vv. 15-18, to which are given from God those various and external administrations for edification…”
.
pp. 34-35
“…and that fellowship which the members of a particular Church hold amongst themselves, the same in a due proportion ought the provincial and national Churches to hold amongst themselves, for the mutual edification and increase of the body of Christ…”
.
An Impure Church may be Better than a Church with Purer External Ordinances
.
Travis Fentiman
.
Conclusions: (1) One ought not to be high-minded about a church with right external ordinances, and (2) attending a church imperfect in external ordinances may be ethically obligatory rather than a church with more pure ordinances.
Doctrine: A church which has perfect external government and worship ordinances (if it truly be such), even that which is sincere and zealous in other Christian priorities, is not necessarily better or more faithful than other churches with defective external government and worship ordinances, especially for particular individuals.
Concise Proof:
1. External government and worship ordinances flow out of the 2nd Commandment. Public worship ordinances flow out of external government,¹ and Church government has always been held by historic reformed theology to be a seconday matter.
¹ This premise is foundational for Samuel Rutherford’s The Divine Right of Church Government (1646) and it is partly due to ministers of the Word having the authority to establish and regularly administer and govern public worship ordinances.
2. Other churches may be better and more consistent in natural worship (including in everyday life, in serving the Lord and others in the many Christian graces and affections, etc.), which falls under the 1st Commandment (that God would be wholly our God, and we wholly his people), and is more foundational and important than external government and worship ordinances.² Worship ordinances are for the purpose of promoting natural worship.³ Christ, to obey the 1st Commandment, went outside the camp, leaving off positive church ordinances (Heb. 13:12-13).
² Natural vs. Instituted Worship
³ Instituted Worshp is for Natural Worship, & is Subservient to it
3. “The weightier matters of the law” such as “judgment, mercy, and faith” (Mt. 23:23), faith, hope and love (1 Cor. 13), and the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) are more important than worship ordinances (Isa. 1:13-15 etc.). God loves mercy more than sacrifice (Hos. 6:6).
4. External worship is a shell, but pure worship ordinances, to be wholly approved by the Lord, include the fundamentals of one’s purity of life, one’s heart in worship, and all the spiritual graces that ought to characterize a Christian (Isa. 66:2; 1 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 9:14; James 4:8). The outwardly defective church may be better in this and in promoting and influencing it in the individual.
A less ideal form that retains the substance is better than the most ideal form that subverts substance. Any methodology, distinctive, or emphasis which inverts the priority of substance to form will have tragic consequences.
5. As to the objection: If persons and the church sought to be like David, a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22; 1st Commandment), they would reform to have perfect external worship ordinances and government. But they don’t; therefore they are not Christians after God’s own heart and they do not keep the 1st Commandment like they should:
David was a man after God’s own heart, yet lived in perpetual polygamy and with a harem of concubines (2 Sam. 3:2-5; 15:16; 1 Chron. 3:1-9); nor did he ever reform this. One can get some significant things wrong, whether due to one’s own corruption, the culture’s sins, bad instruction, etc., and still be a Christian after God’s own heart (1st Commandment).
6. One need not personally perform any sinful impurity of an externally defective church, nor are you necessarily responsible for the sins of others.ª Many impurities in government may be tolerated and participated in as the greatest good currently attainable, working unto the Biblical ideal or a higher good. The perfect ideal ought not to hinder attainable good, but promote it.
7. Not every impurity or defect in worship ordinances and government is of the same degree of corruption, and the significance of some of such things, like an undue ordering of natural things (1 Cor. 14:40) that are not held to be religiously significant or means of grace may be negligible or tolerable.
8. Impurities expressing natural worship are different than the condemned positive rite in Lev. 10:1-10, and do not have the same degree of fault, and may even be accepted of the Lord, He being able to divide between the inward man and the chaff (Heb. 4:12-13), especially as consciences are informed or convicted differently about it (Rom. 14:5). Read: Leviticus 10 Cleared & Vindicated regarding the Doctrine of Impurities of Worship.
9. If a person is more spiritually edified and able to grow in the Lord at the defective church more than the perfect external church, he or she may be obligated to that, as we are to do all things unto edification (1 Cor. 14).†
† See ‘Persons may Switch to a More Profitable Church’
10. The perfect external church may have more problems,¹ especially in relation to particular individuals, such that individuals are less hurt and more edified at an externally defective church. This is not wholly subjective, but objective in that the externally defective church may be better and have more goodness in it and in all it does than the externally perfect church.
¹ Kevin Reed: “Some Imperious Presbyterians are known for high-handed and arbitrary uses of church discipline. What is the status of a congregation that doles out ecclesiastical discipline in a tyrannical manner? Such an assembly is unhealthy or corrupt, regardless of whether it has an outward form of Presbyterian polity.” – “Imperious Presbyterianism” (Trinity Foundation, 2008), p. 18
11. To measure yourself and others by the church you attend is pretty ridiculous (consider Christ, the Corinthian Christians, etc.).†
† For a similar error in the early Church, see Reed, “The Errors of Cyprian and Imperious Presbyterians” in “Imperious Presbyterianism”, pp. 8-14
12. To add that the perfect church self-consciously has experiential and experimental religion, a matter of the 1st Commandment, and no excess or error thereabout (theoretically, though this may be questioned and is usually not the case), is not greatly determinative: Every genuine Christian or church which loves the things of the Lord and believes and pursues his promises has it as well, though they do not ride under the banner of those terms.
13. The main tenets put forth here have been taught by historic, divine-right presbyterianism and follow exactly from the Word.
.
For more reformed resources documenting this teaching, see:
Impure Worship may be Better than Pure
All Worship is Impure
Persons or Whole Churches Omitting Parts of Worship due to Necessary Factors may be Acceptable to God
Principles of Union & Separation about Churches with Impurities of Worship
.
When it may be Right to Abstain from Attending Public Worship
See also ‘Reasons for Not Becoming a Member of a Church’.
.
Order of Contents
Quote
Latin
.
Quote
James Durham
The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal (1659), Part 2, ch. 15, p. 152
“2. Although separation be never allowable, and secession be not alway at an instant practicable; yet we suppose, in some cases, simple abstinence, if it be not offensive in the manner and circumstances, if it be not made customary, and if the ground be so convincing and the case so gross that it will affect any ingenuous hearer, and so evident that there is no access to any acquainted in such places to deny the same, or that there be a present undecided process concerning such things before a competent judge; in some such cases, I say, as might be supposed, we conceive abstinence were not rigidly to be misconstructed, it being for the time the burden of such persons that they cannot join; and, it may be, having some public complaint of such a thing to make-out, and in dependence elsewhere:
Although we will not strengthen any to follow this way, nor can it be pretended to where the case is not singularly horrid; yet supposing it to be such, we conceive it is the safest one way for the person’s peace, and the preventing of offence together; yet, much christian prudence is to be exercised in the conveying of the same, if it were by removing for a time, or otherways, that there appear to be no public contempt; but we conceive this case is so rarely incident, and possibly that there needs be little said of it, much less should there be any needless debate or rent entertained upon the consideration or notion thereof.
And certainly the case before us, of the admitting of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, considering their doctrine and deeds, is more horrid than readily can be supposed; and yet it would seem that though this defect should still have continued, the Lord does require no other thing of private professors, but their continuing-in, or holding fast of, their former personal purity, which is all the burden that He does lay upon them.”
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663), vol. 4, pt. 3, bk. 3, Of the Government of the Church with Respect to a State of Turbulence, tract 4
3rd Appendix – Containing a Response to the Question: Are the Faithful in Some Cases for the Time [in Greek, ‘the present hour’?] Able to Abstain from Attending [or Hearing, Audiendis] Assemblies [or Sermons, Concionibus], etc. 740
.
Against Double Separation in Many Church Duties
See also ‘Who may Fight in a Defensive War: Good Christians, Professing Christians or all Citizens?’.
.
Articles
1500’s
Cartwright, Thomas – ‘A Letter of T. C. To Richard Harrison Concerning Separation’ 15 pp. (1584) in The Judgment of Mr. Cartwright & Mr. Baxter Concerning Separation & the Ceremonies (1673) Note that EEBO lists the author as Cartwright (1634-1689), which is untrue. This same work is in Cartwrightiana, pp. 48-58.
“The short [of your inquiring letter] whereof is: The receiving without public repentance of those which come from the Churches of England [to separate assemblies in England]: where because in the outward profession, that the laws of the land do justify the dumb [non-preaching] ministry, there appear unto you no lawful assemblies of the Church of Christ; your fear is, lest in uniting yourselves with such [by allowing them into the good graces of the separate assemblies], you should be unequally yoked [with them], and made fellow members of some other than of that whereof Christ Jesus is the Head.
First therefore, if it be showed that the ordinary assemblies of those that profess the Gospel in England be the Churches of Christ, it seems that the way will be paved and planed for mutual intercourse between us…”
.
1600’s
Fleming the elder, Robert – The Church Wounded & Rent by a Spirit of Division, held forth in a short account of some sad differences has been of late in the Church of Scotland… (1681) 47 pp.
While not approving the Scottish indulgence, Fleming pleads for communion with indulged ministers. Fleming was a minister of the Scots Church in Rotterdam, Holland, succeeding MacWard.
.
Quote
Baxter, Richard
Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024)
pp. 83-84
“But yet it’s an error to hold that if any unjustly condemn other churches, it is a renunciation of that condemned church-state to have communion with them that condemn. Who would have thought the two separating extremes had so agreed in their principles? This is just the very core of the evil of the book of the contrary party which I here answer.
Alas! how few Churches on earth have not peevishly condemned one another: it may be for Easter-day, for the choice of a bishop, as the Donatists (striving whose bishop was the right one): The case of the [early Church groups, the] Novatians, Audians, Luciferians and even of most in East and West are sad instances: And will such censoriousness unChurch them and forbid us communion with them? This is plain revenge and to curse them that curse us and abuse them that abuse us. I like Calvin ‘s spirit better than this, who said, “Though Luther should call me a devil, I would call him the excellent servant of God.”* Too many Lutherans now renounce communion with the Calvinists, who yet renounce not communion with them.
* John Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, ed. Jules Bonnet (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1900), letter 122, to Bullinger (1544), p. 433.”
.
p. 87
“Some object that the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth [Anglican] canons have excommunicated us [nonconformists] already. Therefore we separate not, but they cast us out.
Answer: Let them that are concerned in those canons defend them if they can and justify themselves, for it’s past my skill; but we are not bound (though excommunicated) to execute them on ourselves: Let others do it if it must be done.”
.
Historical
On the Resisting Scottish Covenanters outside the Establishment, 1662-1688
Wodrow, Robert – History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland
vol. 2, pp. 10-11
Wodrow gives the many reasons why all the Scottish ministers outside the establishment did not believe it right to separate from the ministers who took the government indulgence (with certain restrictions) of 1672.
vol. 3, pp. 91 (rt col) & 93 (rt col)
This is a primary source account of the differences between the majority resisting Scottish covenanters, just days, hours and minutes before the Battle of Bothwell Bridge, 1679, and the radical party, which would at that time separate and become the Cameronians.
One of the main issues here was whether the resisiting covenanter army should allow indulged ministers, and the people that willingly heard them, to join in fighting the government soldiers sent there to put them down. The majority, resisting Scottish covenanters said yes, denying double separation in these circumstances, and the Hamiltonians, or soon to be Cameronians, urged no.
The arguments of the majority are better. For an easier account to read, see M’Crie below.
M’Crie, Thomas – pp. 328-30 & 334-36 in Story of the Scottish Church (1875)
This also respects the division of the resisting Scottish covenanters in 1679. See the above notes under Wodrow.
.
How to Cure Separatism
Burroughs, Jeremiah
Irenicum (1653)
ch. 31, ‘The Cure of our Divisions’, with 14 Joining Principles
“There are some diseases that are called opprobria medicorum, ‘the disgraces of physicians’, because they know not what to say or do to them; or if they do anything it is to little purpose. If there be any soul-disease that be opprobrium theologorum, the disgrace of divines, it is this: of contention and division. How little has all that they have studied and endeavored to do prevailed with the hearts of men?
What shall we do? Shall we but join in this one thing, to sit down together, and mourn one over another, one for another, till we have dissolved our hearts into tears, and see if we can thus get them to run one into another? Oh that it might be, what sorrow soever it costs us!” – pp. 252-3
ch. 32, ’14 Joining Considerations’
ch. 33, ‘8 Joining Graces’
ch. 34, ’16 Joining Practices’
ch. 35, ‘Exhortation to Peaceable and Brotherly Union, Showing the Excellency of If’
.
Historical Theology
.
On the Post-Reformation
See also ‘On Cameronianism’.
.
On the 1600’s
Article
Baxter, Richard – “A History of Separatism” in Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (RBO, 2024), pp. 55-59
.
.
Works of Separatists
.
About Separatists
Book
Powicke, Fred – Henry Barrow, Separatist (1550?-1593) & the Exiled Church of Amsterdam (1593-1622) (London: James Clarke, 1900) 349 pp. ToC
.
The Tenets of the English Brownists
Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans… (London, 1822), vol. 1, ch. 6, From Parker to Grindal, pp. 303-5
“The Brownists did not difler from the Church of England in any articles of faith, but were very rigid and narrow in points of discipline. They denied the Church of England to be a true Church and her ministers to be rightly ordained. They maintained the discipline of the Church of England to be Popish and antichristian, and all her ordinances and sacraments invalid. Hence they forbade their people to join with them in prayer, in hearing, or in any part of public worship; nay, they not only renounced communion with the Church of England, but with all other reformed Churches, except such as should be of their own model.
They apprehended, according to Scripture, that every church ought to be confined within the limits of a single congregation and that the government should be democratical. When a church was to be gathered, such as desired to be members made a confession of their faith in the presence of each other, and signed a covenant, obliging
themselves to walk together in the order of the gospel, according to certain rules and agreements therein contained.
The whole power of admitting and excluding members, with the deciding of all controversies, was in the brotherhood. Their church-officers, for preaching the Word and taking care of the poor, were chosen from among themselves, and separated to their several offices by fasting and prayer and imposition of the hands of some of the brethren. They did not allow the priesthood to be a distinct order, or to give a man an indelible character; but as the vote of the brotherhood made him an officer and gave him authority to preach and administer the sacraments among them, so the same power could discharge him from his office and reduce him to the state of a private member.
When the number of communicants was larger than could meet in one place, the church divided and chose new officers from among themselves as before, living together as sister-churches and giving each other the right hand of fellowship, or the privilege of communion with either. One church might not exercise jurisdiction or authority over another, but each might give the other counsel, advice, or admonition if they walked disorderly or abandoned the capital truths of religion; and if the offending church did not receive the admonition, the others were to withdraw and publicly disown them as a church of Christ. The powers of their church-officers were confined within the
narrow limits of their own society; the pastor of one church might not administer the sacrament of baptism or the Lord’s supper to any but those of his own communion and their immediate children. They declared against all prescribed forms of prayer. Any lay-brother had the liberty of prophesying or giving a word of exhortation in their church assemblies; and it was usual after sermon for some of the members to ask questions and confer with each other upon the doctrines that had been delivered; but as for church-censures, they were for an entire separation of the ecclesiastical and civil sword.
In short, every church, or society of Christians meeting in one place, was, according to the Brownists, a body corporate, having full power within itself to admit and exclude members, to choose and ordain officers; and, when the good of the society required it, to depose them, without being accountable to classes, convocations, synods, councils or any jurisdiction whatsoever.
Some of their reasons for withdrawing from the Church are not easily answered: they alleged that the laws of the realm and the queen’s injunctions had made several unwarrantable additions to the institutions of Christ. That there were several gross errors in the Church-service. That these additions and errors were imposed and made necessary to communion. That if persecution for conscience’ sake was the mark of a false church, they could not believe the Church of England to be a true one.
They apprehended farther that the constitution of the hierarchy was too bad to be mended; that the very pillars of it were rotten and that the structure must be begun anew. Since therefore all Christians are obliged to preserve the ordinances of Christ pure and undefiled, they resolved to lay a new foundation and keep as near as they could to the primitive pattern, though it were with the hazard of all that was dear to them in the world.”
.
Bibliography
ed. Read, Conyers – D. Separatism, (b) Later Works in Bibliography of British History: Tudor Period, 1485-1603 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, Press, 1959), ‘Ecclesiastical History’, pp. 208-9
.
.
.
“Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise:
why shouldest thou destroy thyself?”
Ecclesiastes 7:16
.
.
.
Related Pages
The Westminster Divines on Social Covenanting
Independent Churches do not have the Right of Greater Excommunication